Before i start talking and iterating about the propositions that i would like to prove, i will start first by defining the title and then the words used in the title. The will to control intends to describe how far people will go to control and how much it is important to those people while on the other hand the title proposes another question described by controlling what.
WILL is being identified by an internal impulse which is followed by an action that satisfies the attribute/s of that impulse, but things doesn’t come to exist from nothing as for that impulse to emerge there should be something that mandated it’s existence, on the other hand there should be another factor/s that feed this impulse to reach to a point that it mandates action/s as a consequence. if we took a look at Will in relation to time, we could tell that an impulse has a starting date and time which defines that anchor or ground zero for that impulse as before that point the impulse didn’t exist, but will the impulse seize to exist when the outcome of the actions has been deemed to succeed?.
As we defined “the Will” we see the definition still have some empty spaces as the will mandates actions and the action will be in our context “Control”. Control by definition means the ability to manage, influence or direct people’s behaviour or course of events. i believe this definition is more than enough and related enough to the context.
Do people have the Will to control or in a different phrase do they have such an impulse? or this impulse existence on situation bases. i think it exists along with the will to exist as a tool that could be used to preserve the existence of the one, because you seize to exist if you dont control and if you control you exist, some will argue that my proposition is wrong and i would say yes as control in our context hasn’t been identified yet, which leads us to the title and the hidden question that completes the definition “ controlling what?”. their is two shapes of control one being identified by internal and the other one is being identified by external. External and internal control is intertwined in away the internal affect the external and the other way around and the only way to distinguish between them is by identifying the reason that created such an impulse, so if we go back to the proposition that i proposed earlier regarding control as a synonym of exist i feel this is axiom since existence is a vector that needs to be controlled where control manages the velocity and direction of the existence, but to be able to do so the presupposition of power takes a stand as without power or dominion, control will never exist nor the will to do so. I believe that i don’t need to elaborate more about the role that the power contribute to control so now we could change the title a little bit to fit with the context that we proposed “the will to power as a mean to control” and the prove of such a statement comes like this. if you dont have the will to be in power you will to control will never exist and if existed it only exist as a dream or an idea that quench our thirst from a mirage, but if we had the power then the Control is the easy part as it is a matter of power application, and since we defined the will as an impulse that mandates actions, those actions will never be implemented without the power to do so. now if we dissected the word and took the “will to power” it could lead us to the same result as the “will to control” in a way that power also a synonym to existence and the will to power and the will to exist is being also intertwined as you can’t exist without having the power to do so, and if you lost that power you seize to exist.
You would ask yourself where am I leading with that narration as i didn’t provide any tangible proposition until now, and this would be true as my proposition mandates presupposition off certain things that I find myself under the obligation to identify.
Power control and Existence is synonyms to each other and they rely or complete each other as what would be the purpose of power if you dont control or you dont exist, and what would be the purpose of control if you dont have the power to do so nor exist, and how could you exist if you dont have the power to do so nor have the means to control. my proposition is the following. the aim of human existence is the power as a mean to to control and control as a means to power. I will call this suppositions as the holly trinity in judaeo-christian belief system, as one is three and three is one which leads to the same linguistic similarities that had been inherited in the existence of “exist-power-control” constructs.
The holly trinity is the building block for existence and if we took a closer look to the universal history we would find that all changes tiny or dramatical ones happened for that reason, even in individual history (history of the individuals) you could see the traces of this holly trinity clearly either by you being the subject of control and an object to power or by being the object of control and the subject to power. you could see the traces at home at work at societies and even at a global level, and by defragmenting the history of individuals and fragmenting the universal history we could see that universality has been achieved by fragments of individuals history that has been aggregated to reach a global scale. here I’m referring to history as series of individual incidents that collectively has been aggregated to create a universal history and I’m not referring to hegel universal history but to the history in its universality.