|
DMFParadox -> RE: "Making" a sub/slave do something... (3/8/2008 9:12:47 AM)
|
There are no limits within this cosmos; there are only vectors, collections, and fields of influence, which create the illusion of limitations. Only within artificially determined boundaries can you identify 'real' limits. Change the scope, and you change the limits.
As long as your desired outcome has no limitations put upon it, your ability to create a desired outcome has no limits. The more limited the outcome, the more limited your ability to control it.
This is not psuedo-scientific babble, but has pertinence to the current subject. Witness: a 'no-limits' slave truly is not aware of her limits, by choice or by perceptive filtering. Should she remove some of those filters, then she (use your preferred pronoun) would find that she has behavioral preferences and executions which can not be modified by her partner. She would become aware of her limitations.
However, should she remove all perceptual filters, then she would again find that she does not, in fact, have any limits at all. Such filters include ego, self-identity, and motor skills--or skills of any kind.
Is it then correct to say she has limits? Only in context. Is it correct to say that she has no limits? Yes, unless the default context of no context is modified to include her situation to the exclusion of the rest of the cosmos--which introduces error, but is a mental shortcut to allow actionable planning and metrics.
How is this discussion of zen BDSM practical? Because the question at hand is not really, 'Can he make her do something.' It's, 'Can she be made to have no limits to his will,' and the answer is yes. But if he is the one to modify her, then he too is subject to the same chain of logic: he must expand (or contract) his perception of control to include her, her situation, her existing scope of influence, and modify his own goals based on that. Therefore, there is no single situation where he can change her without changing himself. Which might be a 'No' to that question, to some people.
The typical means of 'control' being considered is through interpreted communication. I.e., words. 'What I tell her to do, she does." However, it is not the only means, or even the most predominantly used--it is simply the closest means to the process being used to choose how to accomplish the goal, i.e. verbal thought. Therefore, it's easy to think, "If I ask, and she does, I have the authority in that moment. If she 'agrees' to always do what I ask, then I have ultimate power and she has no limits." But there are other means. Remote social influence, 'he said she said...'; physical influence; economic influence; biological influence; and a near-infinite level of degrees between. None of these are guaranteed, however, due to the unpredictability of quantum collapse. At that point in the decision tree, it's wise to choose methods that have a higher ratio of known quantities to reduce entropy in the output pathway.
Every angle to this conversation comes to this: the limitations on control, and therefore the control itself, are subject to paradox. Neither side is correct or incorrect, but are in fact sequentially correct.
D
|
|
|
|
