The funny thing about debating (generously phrased, arguing is usually a better word to describe the volleys of many people) topics is that in a unified world, a world that is all one – all connected, we result in bickering over priority and semantical differences. It’s the only thing that distinguishes the boundaries between what we imagine, what makes our words their descriptions, and how we can come to convey our thoughts to others toward the desired end of feeling validated.

If you’re not already involving the concepts within the 48 Laws of Power, and my paranoia suggests you are, (it seems appropriate since your About Me page details your newfound interest in interpersonal politics) I’d suggest revising the approach to Law 34. The transgression of that law (a la Louis-Phillipe, Duke of Orléans) seems to be the path you’re possibly on at the moment.

In more immediate matters, I personally would never suggest poverty as a means to independence. True power is had by making others feel powerful. Ever hear of the power behind the throne? It’s Law number 1. Why is networking relevant to start with? For the fact having many powerful supporters makes us most powerful of all (e.g. Oprah). I’m a big fan of Survivor Samoa. It’s a microcosmic example of society at large. We’re all in it for ourselves underneath it all, yet to get that end we must work together and have some sense of decorum. Assuming one is that anti-socially prideful they must do everything themselves (as was George Washington rejecting the help of France and other countries, thinking to solidify America’s position as an independent country), a far more comfortable path would be to proceed in the styling of Dr. Oz. who kissed Oprah’s tail as a very amicable addition to her show for roughly 7 years before she was so overwhelmed she gave him his own show. In the same way she gave Dr. Phil a show after he helped her out of that legal scrape suggesting she defamed cattlemen and their habits with beef. Taking a supporting role of a high flier is far more lucrative position than scrounging until our long awaited crowning day. Once you have the faith of that high flier, they pull you into the stratosphere with them. No ramen noodles required.

To win at Survivor, we portray the consummate citizen. We must be uplifting, likable, and neutral (nonthreatening). Then, when we’re approached in private with a scheme we play along, offering no ideas of our own, a proper pawn. Thus people see value in our being around, they envision us as a contribution to their cause and completely harmless as we’ve demonstrated no scheming ways of our own, thereby our tact grants us a social foundation of impunity. As long as we retain plausible deniability and ergo neutrality within the group we can go along with schemes unscathed.

Applying this to actual life. We need to look at the reality of our station. What’s our ethnic background? Where do we best fit in? What’s our niche? Then we look at the most powerful players (corporations) in the field and study which approach grants us the highest probability in. Then we make our superiors (and their superiors) shine like the burning hot flame of 1,000 suns. After we get enough support, exposure to business co-partners, and collect enough people in the field who genuinely have faith in us, owe us (by their own concession) and above all generally want to see us succeed, we use the knowledge gained in the corporation to start our own business and we plug into all of the resources we’ve gained during our employment. To all probability the outcome is favorable. An excellent showcase of Law 13.

It’s a daunting book but it is the chief set of principles to consider if control and power is our aim. If you’ve read the book but can’t see a proper application, I’d suggest reading or downloading the ebook of Robert Greene’s newer book, the 50th law.

The 48 Laws has a very Machiavellian writing style. It feels evil, yet to have absolute control over everything in our world is about as evil as it comes (Hitler too wanted to shape their world as he saw fit). To be so fearful as to need that much control is evil in itself. Better to stick with the way of the Arete you’ve coined. Then using little tips and tricks from the laws can help us figure out those unfortunate souls who do worry for that level of control and what power we attain through service, benevolence, and humbleness (although honoring our legitimate power of position and not pretending to be something we’re not – which alienates our crowd) can be properly exercised under our own sound judgment and functioning moral compass.

I think the only people who don’t grieve are those who hadn’t loved. I’m so sorry to hear about your wife, you have my sympathies.

Steven Covey separates levels of personal growth from “Dependence” up to “Independence” and finally “Interdependence”. Although I used the term “independence” in this article, I strove to talk about the same core concept that Covey meant for interdependence.

Independence doesn’t mean you never need people. Everyone needs people. But it just means you contribute the same value (financially, socially, intellectually) that you receive from other people. At the highest levels this would mean relying on many people, in relationships where you help them and they help you.

I can’t comment on your relationship with your late wife. But I think a relationship of interdependence, one where both people relied on each other, but also contributed to each other, is the best relationship you can have.

Best,
-Scott

I congratulate your contribution to higher understanding of human relationships starting with the relationship we have with ourselves.

I wonder if you would mind sharing a thought with me on a recent experience I had which brought into question our dependency on others within a close relationship.
I have enjoyed a magnificent relationship with my late wife who had a strong and morally upright character who insisted on excellence from herself and of course myself and two daughters.
My loss of her has brought me to a place where I fear I grew dependent on her strength and in many ways allowed her to make a host of decisions which steered our family. In her absence I grieve not only her death but my own newfound challenges to be that which she so masterfully accomplished.
Was I too dependent?

Your thoughts on this will go a long way to a healthier self exam.

Kindest regards
Dave

I don’t believe independence is a personality trait. One of the things I strove for in the article was to clarify independence to avoid many personality specific details.

Independence, in my opinion, is as much a virtue as compassion, courage, discipline and creativity. Saying it’s a personality trait is a bit like saying that it doesn’t matter whether you’re an asshole or not (lacking compassion) or living in complete fear (lacking courage).

Ideally, everyone would be independent. But that is according to my philosophy of life, not everyone’s. My philosophy of life is also what makes me a vegetarian, exercise every day and not download music. I don’t push my values onto other people (aside from writing about them), because doing so would violate my need to retain the intellectual independence of other people. However, that doesn’t mean I feel these values are just a matter of opinion and personality tastes.

To respond to your question, some people certainly might be happy being entirely dependent. In that case, independence doesn’t become a personal requirement for happiness but a moral imperative. Some people might be happy stealing from other people as well, but that doesn’t mean that theft is just a personality quirk.

Thanks for the comment!

-Scott

I’m not entirely convinced that independence is a virtue for everyone to pursue though. Some people are happy just depending on others, and aren’t meant to be in complete control of their own lives. Not everyone on the ship can be the captain, right? There’s more to life than measuring how much you contribute to a relationship, over how much you withdraw. I’d say independence is a personality trait; individuals that don’t have the trait should just strive to improve some other aspect of their lives ( something simple like just being nicer to others, for example).

Having said that, I’ll admit that your ideas are much better developed and more convincing than mine, and that I think you’re completely right. Especially about intellectual independance- that was a solid paragraph.

Evan

I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch. Attachment can be viewed as another way of looking at dependency, so independence would probably reflect non-attachment. I hadn’t thought of Buddhism writing this, so it’s neat to see the parallel.

Independence (as it is most commonly understood) is usually downplayed in Eastern philosophies. I’m trying to come up with a better understanding of what independence means to me so that it can still reflect the important parts while avoiding the isolation/contrarian aspects.

-Scott