Photo: Marc Chagall: King David (1951) - The Ethics of Power.  King David is rebuked by the Prophet Nathan for having stolen the wife to his subject to make her his bride. Photo: Marc Chagall: King David (1951) - The Ethics of Power. King David is rebuked by the Prophet Nathan for having stolen the wife to his subject to make her his bride.

We know that the words, maybe not all, have a power, for this one must say risky words but calibrated, significant. Each word therefore has a power, so I show you " the ethics of power " for those who will use words to communicate to the people, today the people of the network.

I have already spoken of the evils of power, but is it possible to have some good from the power? Lets see how?

Ascetically with an exhortation: give up exercising an influence (energy) either beneficial or evil on one's fellows, use the middle path, consider this way: look for the better life, better job, a better world for the individual.

We see certain politicians, certain mystics, preachers of every race and colour that are convinced that giving up power is the good of the people, they did it because they believe that giving up, they leave the individual free, but actually they had given up only in certain ways: because if they had given up completely, they would not have proclaimed certain doctrines, would not have made good for their own good, they have only given up the coercive power, but not that of persuasion!

But there is a huge difference between the power as a desire and as an ends in itself.

Anyone who wants it as a medium, has had some form of desire and wants to find the condition to make it happen.

Those who want the power as an ends, chooses its purpose in the light of possible good or bad to realize it even on the skin of others.

A small example to better understand: those who want to implement certain measures, take part in public life (politics), who wants to exercise it as personal success accepts any program useful to this desire, though it will be a compromise; to better understand, my thoughts turn to Christ in the desert, he is offered all kingdoms of the Earth if he had bent to worship Satan; he was offered the power to achieve his Purpose, his goal, which were not those he wanted to achieve his purpose.

Here we are! All modern men are exposed to this temptation !

I say if the must be beneficial, it should be connected to a purpose other than that of pure and simple power.

One should also be aware that there is another condition that the love for power must meet if it wants to be beneficial, it must connect to some purpose with the wishes of the people who suffer the effects of that purpose, moreover the means to achieve these purposes should not have any secondary purposes in such large numbers to counterbalance the goodness of the ends.

The, as the lust is strong enough to influence the actions of men more than one may think.

The ethics of power depends on the forms of love that one has for it and on every man's temperament, morality of power should not be divided into legitimate and others as illegitimate.

This moral has two aspects, at least since the time of the Hebrew prophets onwards; on the one hand, the social institution, on the other a matter of individual conscience, positive morality is older than the personal one, and perhaps older than the law itself and the Government.

The most obvious example of the alliance between ethical and moral power is the imposition of obedience: children have (had) the duty to obey their parents, wife to husband, the servants to masters, subjects to principles, lackeys to politicians, and so on.

Answer this question: is there an ethical doctrine regarding the power?

If social life needs to satisfy social desires, it will melt on some philosophy that does not come from the love for power.


A Reflection

 Let's make a distinction on the conceptual level between law – State – power: the State bases its practice on penalty, on class inequalities, while the law bases its practice on consent, that is, the reason, on the reduction of class privileges, i.e. on the defence of weaker by the stronger.

The State is not what one would like it to be, but it is what has become in history, with its "separate bodies".

The law (written or unwritten) is the unidentified state structure, indeed their genesis is antithetical.

The State seizes the letter of the law to codify inequalities.

The state as a current expression of privilege; the law expression of freedom and killer of every class privilege, in the light of the world of the prophets.

Прочитано 4135 раз Последнее изменение Суббота, 20 мая 2017 11:44

In this article, I would like to focus on Violence and provide an insight into all its various aspects.

It goes without saying that the approach to violence takes on either an objective or a subjective connotation depending on the subjects who use violence, i.e. the oppressed or the ruling class.

Put simply, it is impossible to equate the violence of the "Settler" with the violence of the "Colonized person": the violence of the Settler against the Colonised person and the violence of the latter against the former; these "two" kinds of violence are clearly distinct.

In fact, the violence of the Rich and the violence of the Poor are not the same thing: the Poor actually fight against the root of the power and try to redeem themselves from the violence suffered, which in turn addresses the weak and urges the poor to put the blame for their failure on the lowest, forever repeating the reasons underlying their own failure and oppression.

Obviously, the violence of the Poor who wants to take the place of the rich, thus vexing those who are equally poor or even poorer, looks like the violence of the Rich, since it is based on the same feelings of envy, oppression, grudge and revenge.

This behaviour feeds the violence of the Rich and is also responsible for it.

This violence-revenge does not express the urgency to totally overcome one’s status of exploited or exploiter, as the "grudge" does not rely on "the Last will be the First, and the First will be the Last, so that there will be neither First nor Last."

However, from a logical point of view, the violence used by the "Rich" is different, because the rich can draw on countless resources to act in the name of beauty, magnanimity, mercy, pity and in harmony with the whole world, while the Servants are needy and deprived of the enlightened rationality, therefore they are generally less free and aware than the Rich or even than those who are neither rich nor poor, but released from opposing antagonisms.

Someone asked us: "Modern prophetism often talks about God, so what is God for you? And what religion do you profess? What is the meaning of this word? Are there any other Gods? If so, who are they?" 

A. as soon as you cease to be, you will become God.

However, please remember that Modern Prophetism has always regarded this entity as "The Great Light", I will tell you why later on.

All the religions, without any exception, believe that men have had a soul since their birth.

Throughout the history of mankind, Giorgio Gurdjieff is the only one who has astonishingly said: "You don’t have any soul."

The only one! Despite the various religions.

Gurdjieff stands out from the crowd and claims that men have no soul; therefore, the place intended for the soul is actually empty.

Anyhow, we may try to create it.

Другие материалы в этой категории: « Modern Prophets The Network and the Modern Prophetism »

Оставить комментарий

Human Rights

Prophetic Knowledge

The New Man

Современный пророк

Modern Prophets - Principles of Humanistic Logic