whole page

SECULARITY AND COMMUNAUTARISM

or how to reject work and the Community property

to defend the management of the collective ownership by a minority of leaders and its elites intellectual.

 

source: the talk of a professor of philosophy to the IEP of Paris in spring 2002 in the large living room from the Sorbonne in Paris

the framework of this talk:

to wonder about the feeling of cohesion of the company, identity with respect to the Nation. To wonder about the leavens of destruction of social fabric related to phenomena of violence and bands.

talk drank: to reflect on the requirements of secularity on the school to educate the citizens in the compliance of the Nation and the basic rules of the French Republic whose secularity represents a pillar.

the reformulation of the goal and the framework of this talk according to fileane.com:

how our system of power solidified in its conservatism and its opposition to progress can fight against the dissenting minorities which defend their cultures and their networks of economic and social life and which, once organized in resistance networks, develop apart from the republican framework either to grow rich on the material level through the illegal economy or to extend their cultures, in particular spiritual or religious, or still under cover of a religion, develop their system of material enrichment with the profit of a new leading minority, all this without respecting the framework of secularity?

In short, how our system of being able can fight against the rise of the organizations in network within our companies?

recall of the position of fileane.com:

to stigmatize and eliminate as much as possible the legal fictions sources from Utopias which come to give to a system  to be able its ideological and dogmatic coherence when the principles of its operation are not able alone to arrive at the fixed goal. Ex: fiction of the legal equality whereas the principle of freedom and the personal property in the economy lead to accept the reality of enrichment without limits for the private owners of the means of production and their domination of the instruments of being able to subject the populations to their interests: ex: to acquire the means of information, communication and edition to tolerate only the ideas favorable to their interests and to thus increase the opposition to progress of the institutions.

By breaking these fictions and these interdicts pronounced by the leading minority, being able to write a declaration of the rights to the life without resorting to this kind of legal or philosophical fictions.

To develop an organization in network able to marry the cultures thanks to the actualization of a total knowledge

To transform the systems of being able and the resistance networks which they generated. To work on the 3 levels of social contracts within the framework of a complementarity between individual, Community and social (or collective). To remove the interdict on the Community level under pretext which it comes to complicate or make useless the collective level managed under the monopoly of the state.

REFUTATION OF the advanced ARGUMENTS at the time of this talk in the Sorbonne:

 secularity is not only one device legal of management of spiritual pluralism, it is also the resumption of 3 great values constitutive of the republican triptych:

proposal 1 : freedom: radical freedom of conscience: to believe or not in a God without a public authority requiring that accounts be returned to him.

The fact for several believing requesting together cannot have of public size. Public dimension relates to the common interest. This common interest is opposed to any particularism. A public authority does not have to even tolerate particularisms because this tolerance can tomorrow be transformed into interdict and cause disorders which it is to better avoid from the beginning by not conceding any tolerance. The common interest as the Nation is single and indivisible.

These principles of 1789 take again for example the thought of J-J Rousseau : 

"If, when the sufficiently informed people deliberate, the citizens did not have any communication between them, from the great number of small differences would always result the general will and this will would be always good... it is essential thus that there is no partial company in the State and that each citizen operates only in his opinion."

drawn from the social Contract II, 3 of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

The state education is laic to consolidate the freedom of conscience, by giving to the conscience of each one the means of its freedom.

refutation:

the system which monopolized the management of the collective indeed prohibits any passage between the Community level and the collective level. The leaders with the power on the collective level established well a monopoly of management of the common interest. They declare that the leaders of the Community level work for particular interests. So no complementarity is allowed between these two levels. And we nothing will add to the quotation of Rousseau kneaded of an ideal able to deny the impact of the communications between human beings. It is necessary all the same to dare to do it! We prefer here the words of Freud to him which, to leave the faintness of civilization, precisely hoped on the development of new means of communication. And with Internet, on this Web site, we are in the right wire of the thought of Freud and we give to the wall cupboard the Jean-Jacques... without overpowering it more!

Without reconsidering the legal origins of these rules closely related to the attempt of Roman papacy to prohibit the Christian communities to establish only one faith, the faith dictated by Rome, we explain on this site why the revolutionists of 1789 prohibited the Community property whose last origin goes up at the time of the cathedrals organized by the order of the Temple and who, under Ancien Régime, had been monopolized and despoiled by the nobility. This one, while placing some of his/her children to the head of the inheritance of the catholic church, arrived at better defending its interests and privileges of class. We put forward this will of the revolution of 1789 which was transformed quickly into coarse error so much it created Utopias in the new system of being able, so much it founded unrealizable securities in the system of intellectual power. Put besides this interdict on which secularity rests, the freedom of conscience remains a Utopia, an unrealizable share in this system of intellectual power.

Vis-a-vis with the reality of death, carnal of our human condition, with the processions of crimes and violences caused by the human beings, secularity remains a intellectual concept without effect. It abolished as of its setting-up neither slavery neither the death penalty, nor the right for certain leaders to send to the massacre their people with an aim of defending their system power royal, imperial, republican, socialist, communist, etc. This progress, these freedoms was always acquired by the fight of resistance networks which one day succeeded in imposing these values and these freedoms in the operation of the system of being able in place or in that founded to replace the old one. And there is not to seek arguments in the direction of a history which would develop in a linear way: these values same Utopias, once founded with the pediment of the republic, would be used to guide the people! Well before 1789, in the organizations in network of the time of the cathedrals as at the time of the Christian communities, among Mormons at the 17th century or in other Protestant communities and without going up to ancient Egypt or other disappeared civilizations, the absence of slavery, the equality man-woman, the equitable distribution of the richnesses especially in the event of food shortage were one flourishing time driving alive realities for these people.

The freedom of conscience, freedom exists only in the choice to refuse the Utopias of our systems of being able to replace them by practices, experiments of life lived through an organization in network. The freedom of conscience is not an indeed unverifiable space by the managers of the public interest and which of this fact must be confined in the spirit of a person without this one not being able to influence another and thus to divert it common good. The freedom of conscience exists in the choice recognized with any human being to find its reasons of living and dying, to forge its hope human being. The trouble for the defenders of a common interest, they is that our reasons of living are the same ones as our reasons to die and are the same ones for any human being. The common interest is not a concept nor an ideal but a reality of life impossible to circumvent when we run up against the mysteries of the life and that on the way of an initiation to other dimensions of the life that that limited to our carnal body, we hear the call with living beyond the death of our carnal body. Testimonys on the immediate experiments of death (EMI) or on the experiments at the borders of dead (EFM) are there for us to point out it: these meetings, this crossing of the well of light is the same one for any human being some is its color of skin, its sex, its age, the place where it lives on ground... The division of these experiments of life, of this translation of the mysteries, this culture based on a total knowledge drawn from initiation, is the pillar of the Community organization. In fact the first Christian communities will change the values of the Roman empire: the abolition of slavery, suppression of the crimes committed at the time of the circus games, the equality man woman. Later in fact the monastic communities will develop time of the cathedrals and after its destruction and the one hundred year old war, the rebirth will come to try to find such an organization in network as well as the knight spirit. Then it will be the turn of the Protestant movement to hustle the values and the organization of the wealths of developing the industrial quoted first with the Community spirit. These movements were fought and supplanted by the interests of the leaders of the systems of civil and religious capacities but little by little, these values were based in the operation of the system to make it more social and democratic. The system spends time before agreeing to move, integrate change and to overcome its visceral fear of the breakdown and skid.

With the freedom of conscience defended by the system of republican power to ensure the common interest, we prefer freedom to release us from the limits of our condition mortal to find dimensions of our humanity across the end of our carnal body. With the freedom of conscience management tool of the common interest, we prefer the way of the division in community of our experiments of life at the borders of the life and the surreality. Vis-a-vis with the distresses and hateful silences of the freedom of conscience vis-a-vis at worst the genocides and crimes of the XXème century, we prefer the action and the faith of the knight who fights to tear off the weapons of the criminal hands, which works to minimize violence, which dies to defend the widow and the orphan. With the thought even rationally pure, we prefer the action. With the Utopia penaude and sensitive to the cold of our systems, we choose the hope of living.

proposal 2 : the second base of secularity is the principle of equality 

To be equal, the Republic should not tolerate any particularism, it should not post in its public acts any spiritual preference. Its universality is the condition of possibility so that all the citizens, whatever their respective spiritual options, can recognize themselves in it. The equality supposes the A-denominational character of the public sphere. A-denominational does not mean empties but fills by the common interest. Since a foreigner gives up his original particularism to promote the common interest, it is integrated in the French Nation. So for the laic republic, there are no foreigners. Being thus equal, civic space opens the doors of fraternity.

refutation:

we brutally will not oppose reality to what remained only pure legal fiction, philosophical ideal and economic policy Utopia and social. One could oppose to us that if this situation remains deplorable, it is well because all do not have obeys, do not respect the operation of the system, do not develop a consequent even patriotic civic direction. But is it necessary to accept these limits or to criticize the design of a system of power unable to precisely exceed these limits and to overcome these gaps?

With through the history, we can oppose the systems of capacities, effective instruments of warlike conquests then colonial before sinking in the disasters of the fights between economic systems which were partly the First World War  and entirely the second world war, before finishing discrediting itself while being unable to prevent the genocides and the rise of terrorism, yes, we can oppose these systems of being able to the material equality assured by the organizations in networks mainly at the time of the crises or the food shortages when a Pharaon receives for meal the same food bowl as another member of the community, when a Christian centurion cuts with his sword his coat to divide with the pauper of the edge of the way. As much the system tends towards the centralism of its capacities and succumbs to excesses of the abuses of power carried out by its leaders, as much the organization in network practises the material equality, the reception from abroad or new who comes to enrich by his experiment the community. Their heads, these communities are generally directed by initiates who made v?ux poverty, which does not prevent them from being experts in management or of accountancy, in participative management of the 3rd type using without complex the grid of Blake and Mouton since it supports the work of group and the collegial decision-making.

The republican equality remains well a notion aiming at remove particularisms in the Nation with the profit of the managers of the collective ownership of the state. It is in the name of this principle that was adopted the law the Hatter in 1790 abolishing the corporations and the decree of Allard founding the freedom of the Trade and Industry. This law in 1790 was legitimate to correct excesses and the drifts of Ancien Régime but these specific measurements could not decently be set up in fundamental republican values without hiding a quite particular strategy: to make the vacuum enters the citizens and their leaders only administrative of the public interest. How this measurement either taken to prevent the royalist opposition and the aristocracy déchue to reorganize through the Community level of organization, or! But then to proceed like made the revolutionists of 1790 belongs to the silly thing or at least to a lack of knowledge on the manner of organizing companies that it is in system or that it is in network. The argument that we would accept rests on the fact that in more of the social reorganization, to correctly give the catholic aristocracy to its place as a community having the same importance that the others would have to consist in taking again all the question of papacy and its dogmatic ambitions. Even if this work appears considerable and requires a period of social peace rather that one period of revolution, the French and European authors of the Century of the Lights had to however prepare not badly the way. It was enough to insert the nail and to take again the authentic file of the organization in network of the time of the cathedrals to make condemn on the furnace bridge of humanity and the king of France and the pope of Rome, persons in charge for the destruction of the last European organization in network. Let us leave the history. This question will be inevitably taken again at the time of the transition between our systems from being able and the next organization in network. A constitutional solution to organize the marriage of the cultures and religions rest on the legal settlement but is well then to recognize the particularism of these religions.

The material equality especially in the event of crises was not included/understood in this revolutionary concept then republican since the republic cut off in its monopoly from the collective ownership had n the other hand left to the citizens the personal freedom grow rich without limits. The French Republic became thus well the country with the strongest social inequalities among the developed countries: 5% of the citizens having 45% of the value of the national heritage, 5% following having 10% and thus 90% of the citizens dividing 45% of this national heritage. What can explain why in the year 2000, it is necessary to found the cover universal disease not to see proliferating the paupers in search for good Doctor Dickens. Also not surprising the fact that an employee even tallies higher finds so quickly with the street in our country since there is no Community level to deaden the fall or to keep a suitable socialization (except caritative associations, restaurant of the heart, etc.). As for the rises of the resistance networks to the republican equality which develops in the illegal economy their original or religious particularisms, before condemning them in the name of republican secularity, it would have to be remembered that the organization in network precisely sets as practical daily the marriage of the Community cultures to work on social dimension the values which will make it possible at each community to develop in a minimization of violence. The failures of the nationalist policies aiming at prohibiting immigration rappèlent it to us: instead of prohibiting the arrival of foreign whole communities, there is the alternative to help these communities to develop in their areas or to change areas without excluding if necessary a temporary or final passage in ours. The durable development of humanity can hardly be considered without this marriage of the cultures. How people should give up their cultures to be integrated in ours, in their place would accept us this republican principle of equality? Oh certainly, once the marriage of the cultures realized, we are at the same point as the republic with its public interest which does not support particularisms! It is although we advance in the same direction, that it is not absolutely necessary of one question of means!

proposal 3 : the third principle founder of secularity is fraternity

the idea is that the world is common to all, across the differences. Even if the republic level not the differences, it requires simply that the differences be lived with enough distance so that beyond them can live a world common to all. Secularity is not anti chocolate éclair but it is opposed so that a religion asserts for it a power of domination or privileges public in the management of the great phenomena of company, even if this religion can assert a consequent historical heritage (like the catholic religion in France)

refutation:

we do not delay on this concept of differences whereas on the level of the equality, one does not recognize particularisms. Admittedly even by  refusing any particularism at community level, there remains differences on the individual level which the religions because of the freedom of conscience recognized with each citizen can in particular maintain. We agree on the fact that a religion cannot impose its directives in a problem of company and on the fact that it is necessary to take retreat with our differences and our particularisms to define a common space together. We also do not delay on the calamitous assessment of this French republican fraternity. Solidarity existed at the time of the crises or the wars but mainly within each camp which was fought. Rare were the moments of national union where, when crowd and her leaders ravelled of the same step, there were not yet some blows of drawn rifles among that! It is clear that divisions in the population allowed the minority with the power to continue its material enrichment without hardly of serious questioning of the system but rather thanks to conservatism and the opposition to progress of its devoted elites.

The organization in network practises a fraternity daily and anchored in the life of each one. By recognizing the contribution of spiritual dimension human being, it takes into account and develops wisdom, the gift of love, the new alleviated vision of the human and social life which results from the meeting with the mysteries of the life. Rather than to drive out these deviating citizens, marginal, protestors or dissidents towards the systems of capacities, the organization in network allows them?uvrer within their communities. Fraternity and solidarity are lived within the communities. Whereas the systems recognize only the family and still, in 1789 this one was limited almost to the authority of the father of family, the organization in network always developed on lived with the daily newspaper of the equality man woman, of the equitable division of the richnesses and the strict equality with respect to the material resources in the event of crisis or of food shortage. Admittedly in our companies of abundance, these concepts of solidarity and equality vis-a-vis to the crisis lost of their acuity but we are not alone. We have opposite us applicants of division of our richnesses and if our systems of capacities act towards them of generally being unaware of them, the organization in network lends itself by vocation to create reciprocal exchanges towards these communities in a mutual objective of enrichment on the material and immaterial level. Lastly, on the social standing, the marriage of the cultures has the aim of determining and to make evolve/move the rules of common life to minimize violence and to increase in dignity the satisfaction of the individual needs.

The organization of the communities as well induces a permanent movement in the birth of new communities as in the constant adaptation of old. There are no more systems of civil and religious capacities to impose their dogmas and their rules of operation. The religion is not any more one temporal power but a field of spiritual expression gathering of the values common to groups or sharing the same approach of the mysteries. The spiritual communities in their daily practice make evolve/move these translations of the meetings with the mysteries and they fight the sectarian systems and groups which try to impose their power. The marriage of the cultures does not lead to a syncretism: there is not search for a synthesis, of lowest common denominator to join together different thoughts at the beginning in the same knowledge. The synthesis is indeed the intellectual weapon of the leaders of the systems to integrate from the points of view or the foreign thoughts into their system. The marriage of the cultures leads to a total knowledge able to ensure the durable development of the humanity, to know in which there is complementarity between knowing intellectual produced by the human spirit and spiritual knowledge drawn from initiation. There is alliance of what in a system of thought remains irreconcilable opposites. For example scientific medicine does not reject any more and does not condemn any more the spiritual cures at the time of experiments to the borders of death. On the contrary, it seeks to use all these sources of progress to cure. Lastly, the existence of communities structured according to the generations allows also the transmission of the world of one generation the other whereas the systems of being able walled in their Utopias are unaware of this natural devolution from one generation to another although in reality, it never ceased taking place.

Fraternity supposes a division of goods or services related to the intimacy of our human existence. How this republican fraternity can leave its fiction when it imposes a freedom of conscience immured in the spirit of the person who exerts it, when it refuses to organize the division of the word deduced from this freedom of conscience? How as regards the social aspects a fraternity can it develop without living already at community level? How to have the head with a success in the studies or a professional and social life when you must each day face family conflicts? The current opposition to progress rests partly on this inpower to translate the individual aspirations in communities initiating  of the evolutions or the ruptures with order of antiquated thoughts. The popular referendum of initiative devotes this expression of a community with respect to the whole of the citizens and it is not for only this reform was never adopted in our constitutions and that the only reform under consideration on this point relates to referendums of local initiatives on local subjects not being able to become national. We remain about it here with a transposition of the mechanism of the law Waldeck Rousseau of 1884 which recognizes the trade unionism and trade-union freedom but with the proviso of remaining in the professional field and of not going in the political field as if the interest of the working class had nothing to do with the common interest of the country and could exist independently of him. 

But how to make so that these local referendums do not develop local particularisms more? We live the time of "Sam is enough" triumphing with a fold over the individual level, only the whose citizens can profit so much state through its monopolies dictates its law in the collective management of the public interest and imposes its whims to defend the interests of its leading class. This triumph of "Sam is enough" is one of the major origins of depresses collective French company since the years 1990. In spite of the acknowledgement of failure of the economic policies and social several governments of right-hand side like left being very ingéniant to maintain with flood a system of obsolete power, the citizens are confined on the individual level, on what it remains in our republican institutions of elements of the first social contract: absolute right to enjoy its private property. This depresses collective is well the reverse of what the fiction of republican fraternity claims. Indeed how to nourish fraternity when there is nothing to divide? How to live content in a company which does not manage to manufacture new common standards of life, to manufacture this expensive ethics with the philosophers, to give birth to from new reasons of living and collective hopes following the poets who show the way however of it ? Allow the poet of this Web site to quote another poet, André Breton: "it was important me too much to hear you one day answer in all innocence these insidious questions that the large people pose to the children: "with what does one think, one suffers? From which comes the night? "Today, it is important with me to raise the question: "with which one divides? with what?"

 

The principal way of fraternity rests on our spiritual dimension. Our systems of civil and religious capacities to defend their dogmas reject this spiritual dimension. In this rejection and this taboo pronounced on spirituality rests the failures of our companies to being fraternal as well as the source of our ceaseless wars for the domination of a system of being able on those of the neighbors. Fraternity supposes well on the abandonment of our systems of being able.

proposal 4 : the democracy and the Republic recognize for subject of right only the individual.

only the individual is prone of right. The honor of the republic and the public institutions is to give to the individual all the tools, all the instruments of its own emancipation. It is to place at its disposal the best of the universal culture. This one is like the memory of the humanity deposited in works, and for which the school has for great responsibility to transmit indeed the asset to young people who are entrusted to him. And the lecturer to quote a sentence of a large thinker of the school: "the school, it is the place where one learns which one is unaware of to be able, at the proper time, to happen from Master". The finality of the school is to deliver the individual. This design of the laic ideal is a all the more demanding design as it places very high the human ideal of achievement by which it aims at the citizenship.

refutation:

that the individual must release himself from his human condition and that a training is essential to support this release, it is also our matter. Only the system of being able and the school system of this power never reached that point and to the place of release, it recurringly sent youth to the massacre on the battle fields so much this power was to defend its own interests vis-a-vis with other systems of being able.

The release for us has a quite precise reason: to withdraw itself from the dogmas and the systems of being able which defend the interests of their leading minorities by requiring the obedience of the silent majorities or ignorant. The knowledge is well the base of this way liberator but it is necessary to draw aside this fiction of a knowledge or a universal culture. Between this universal culture which is the human ideal more raised and the marriage of the cultures ensured by the organization in networks of our companies, There is a great difference.

We point out that LE role of the power when it exerts its delegation of received authority of the people is to select the rules which will minimize individual and collective violence. This power will pronounce interdicts and taboos. Admittedly the universal culture after the work of the various capacities can be conceived like perfectly pure of any germ of violence, racism, discrimination or incentive to hatred. Under the reign of the systems of being able, that was never the case. The only periods when a marriage of the cultures took place, it was the work communities using spiritual dimension human being and the way of initiation to the mysteries of the life beyond carnal death. The French Republic continues in the defense of its system of being able, the company of Roman papacy to knowing prohibition of the initiatory way. The universal culture that it sets up in fiction and ideal remains a culture wobbly, incomplete and untrue because it is unaware of the first source of knowing, precisely that where there does not need Masters and which is wary of the Masters. This first individual source and close friend result from confrontation human being with dimensions of its human existence, its confrontation with the mysteries of the life. It discusses through the dialogue the heart for the heart.

There is not to place very high the human ideal of achievement. It is enough to admit this source to know in each human being even in the pauper, the uncultivated one as in worthiest wise who joined the hut of the fisherman and isolated from the world, passes its life to be looked at spinning the water of the river. The question of the universal culture artificial, is manufactured by the elites intellectuals with the service of a system of being able to consolidate this system in the coherence of its fictions and its Utopias. The vital, basic human question is well this one: can the even reduced human being with the intellectual knowledge more no one, not seek its reasons to live and to die, not to revolt and release themselves from her human condition mortal is by having faith in that which lives in him and will make him cross carnal death, that is to say by adopting a intellectual reasoning which will enable him to draw aside this question of dead of its carnal body? Admittedly there is also the way of noncomprehension or of the absolute refusal of our human condition, she usually carries out to the madness and the destruction of the carnal body.

The initiatory way is impossible to circumvent. The republican system locks up it in the freedom of conscience so much it cannot dispute it by final rational arguments. And us revoilà in the presence of the legal entity of the Nation which works with the public interest. Admittedly, certainly we do not dispute that on the intellectual level ideological construction remains coherent. The citizens are only prone of right and it is by their delegation of powers with their representatives that the nation draws its capacities. Would this be still acceptable but which defines and organizes the republican ideals? Those which received delegation of powers? Is they held from their mandate to translate the wills of their voters? That could be allowed within the framework of a semi-direct representative democracy which awaits only progress in the communications and telecommunications, the NTIC to become more direct. Since 1789, it is not the case because with the top of the prone citizens of rights, there are the common interest, the supreme reason and all these revolutionary fictions installation precipitately to supplant the values of Ancien Régime and to offer to the people a body of thought to be adopted to follow a constitutional monarchy initially then finally a republic.

It only the individual as prone of right can y have but wouldn't there be an object of right consisted the interest public and managed by the leaders of the system? The power is then charged all to implement indeed so that the subjects of rights approach as much as possible this object of right. The objective right represents the bodies of rules well registered in our various legal codes and the subjects of right enjoy prerogatives well to ask for in their favour the application of this objective right! Consequently the representatives of the people can be detached their electoral mandates to endeavour to work in a better translation of this elaborate objective right starting from this ideal of the general interest. The sanction in the event of error is to be made beat with the elections not to have known to also include/understand the v?ux their voters and the history is repeated with the other camp which also will seek him to reach this ideal until discouraging its voters, the final result being the discouragement of the voters of the two camps, the rise of the abstentionism to the elections, the rupture between the citizens and the political community. The whole supplemented by a frileux refusal of the politicians of all edges to come from there finally to the popular referendum to allow citizens to propose another thing such as for example the alternative of the organization in network... and to thus avoid these revolutions and these disorders civil and military of which French history so rich east... unfortunately!

The political leaders knew to protect to be able to them against the disorders from the street so that the subjects of right cannot easily come to oppose their fundamental work of research of the best rules for the general interest (that some of them can even claim to incarnate!) Consequently it is quite clear that the individuals are subjects and are only subjects of right crushed under the weight of a idealized objective right which makes it possible some to monopolize the control of the country to defend their interests. The fable continues while trying to show that these interests, their fortunes or their social status even their intellectual and dogmatic claims are with the c?ur system and allow him to develop... by respecting the personal freedom... including those and those which did not know to learn what they are unaware of to be able one day to occur from Masters and who thus always need Masters and who thus must obey to them, with them the elites of the nation which knew to push the requirements of their training to the most degree to see itself giving the exclusive right to occupy itself of transcribing the public interest in body of rules.

In the organization in network, this higher and idealized public interest does not exist like objective concept independent of the everyday life of the individuals. The latter do not have to believe nor to subject itself to this kind of fable. The network gathers volunteers who freely define their objectives and the means to hold them. Once these objectives achieved, they is free outward journey or not further and they cannot call upon any right of ownership to prohibit with other networks to use their realization to go further, to make other progress. Our only good on ground is indeed our freedom, that to act to cross new borders, to build more humanity, to reject the dogmatic ones always more extremely and the ideologists of all hairs which try to impose their systems of capacities if they are not their civil or religious tyrannies. Where are then these prone individuals of right? Behind the bars or derrières of the barbed wire and chevaux-de-frise if it isn't already in a common grave or the chimney of a crematorium? If the republican ideal intends not to want to lock up the individual in the difference but to put it on the track of the requirement and its release with respect to the differences in its sociocultural environment, the operation of this system of being able leads to an opposite result and too often dramatic. The disordered state of the climate reaches even an apocalyptic dimension but it is true that these are the official capacities which contributed to it! (in the most total ignorance of what they did or made it possible to make... as it is usually the case when the intellectual knowledge is not supplemented by the spiritual knowledge drawn from initiation)

proposal 5 : secularity is demanding and is sufficed for itself

It is because the republic is demanding, that it asks to the individual to be freed from his original differences to be based in the public interest, that it is also in measurement of émanciper. To untie the individual of the limit of his sociocultural environment, it is him to show the horizon of a universal humanity. Vis-a-vis with that the ambiguity of the communautarism is serious. To release the individual, to enable him to open out, the republic must give him the conditions of this blooming. They are two: justice social and a laic instruction. Victor Hugo then Jean Jaurès carried this concept of social Republic. It makes it possible to play the game of integration to all the men who came to produce wealth of France. The laic instruction then opens to the individual the doors of the universal culture. The pupil, that which rises, is not led to disavow his origins but to register this origin within a framework of reference, a framework of knowing which enables him to measure, to select the values and the knowledge of this original context according to requirements' of justice and reason.

The culture, according to traditional humanistic interpretation, is the process which raises us with the top of nature and makes us progress unceasingly while raising us above a state frustrates in which we are not yet owners of our potentialities. It is not a static whole of traditions in which the individual would remain locked up. To adopt this second definition indeed is heavy of constraint whereas to retain the first, which recommends the distance with oneself, is rich of emancipation. The communautarism rests on the second definition and locks up people under the weight of the traditions, preventing them of émanciper. As Victor Hugo said it, the right of the child must take precedence over the right of the father. The right of the child, it is the right which makes of him a being which has the possibility of becoming all that it can be. This right of the child is opposed to the right of the community which wants to limit this development to the compliance with the ancestral rules of the community. This is why this right of the child coincides with the right of the state, as Victor Hugo in his speech against the law Falloux said it. The republic is an agent of the potentialities of all the children and must have the role of making them open out by a demanding instruction. The republic should not thus be loose and it must be opposed to all local drifts carried out by particular interests and special interest groups under penalty of destroying another great constitutional principle: the indivisibility of the state. This indivisibility of the state cannot exist under the pressure of local reports/ratios of forces. The republic does not deny particularisms but it requires citizens to exceed them to find itself in the public interest common to all. In the same way the knowledge, the universal culture cannot divide between sphere of the beliefs and sphere of knowledge because the beliefs belong to particularism and the communautarism whereas knowledge is universal, shareable and common to all. The public school develops only knowledge and excluded from speaking about the beliefs. Secularity is even sufficed for it: the freedom of conscience exists only compared to one public interest common to all, since each individual chooses in his conscience what is best to contribute to the common interest, the republic exists and makes progress, nourishes a universal knowledge for the good of humanity.

refutation:

we adopt a definition of the different culture, micro than macro could one say. In the organization in network, in the life of a group, a company, the culture gathers the standards of life of the group. These standards are opposed to those rules or of law laid down by a higher line authority and for which it is necessary to obey. The standard is a rule discussed and defined freely by the group to achieve the goals which it laid down. It is obvious that the adhesion of the group to these standards is natural, which develops the motivation of the group in its work. We took part in the installation of such a culture of company in the companies where we work but very quickly, this culture intended to develop the motivation and the labour productivity ran up against the divergent interests of the shareholders and the leaders to obey the shareholders have to set up plans of dismissals and of wage saving weight, measures faster and effective to release in the short run from the productivity in the factor work. This culture of company was more used to measure the gap between paid and shareholders since the years 1990 that to make progress a social justice and an emancipation of the employees. To release this culture based on the standards of life of the groups thus supposes the elimination of the systems of capacities based, for the case of the companies, on a right of personal property without limits compared to the means of production.

The distinction between communautarism based on a definition of the culture limited to the respect of the traditions and community belonging to an organization in network is indeed fundamental and we let us subscribe to it fully. The communautarism which seeks to legitimate its action through religious or cultural traditions does not have strictly anything to see with the development of the cultures of groups and their marriage in an organization in network. Once more, it is on the level of the means that there is divergence.

So that a person who belongs at a community whose traditions prevent it from exerting its freedom of conscience and its personal choice of life, releases itself, it will join in an organization in network is a community in the same beginnings but not following these traditions or it will create it even a new community. To counter the inevitable report/ratio of force between an old or many community and a young community with less manpower, there is work on the development of the rules of the third contract, the contract social which opens Community work on human dimension, world, total even universal. This work concerns the object, the objectives and it includes/understands well a share of retreat compared to lived of each group. It seeks to reach new borders, the progress made possible by the contribution of each community for a better social justice and peace. This work is realized since more than one half-century through the international organizations except that until now, it depends exclusively on the interests of certain states which can block or deny this humane work or with the dimension of humanity. The organization in network removes this barrier of the states. The network of the communities or the people can take a form at least federal, a direct semi form with representatives with the mandates express train, even a direct form on certain questions. Actually the social groups, people, communities will create between them a new Community organization whose mission delegated by the network will consist in working on the social standing in order to marry the cultures and to minimize violences within the network. The organization of work rests on the alliance of the opposites: the community which emits an initiative must seek a group in the opposite or divergent opinion. The division and the creation of a standard of life common to several groups respect the particularism of each group. The richness comes from diversities of approaches and the various solutions able to nourish freedom to choose its own way, its own reasons to live, even if it means to change groups inside the network. We repeat it, it does not have there in this step seeks of a synthesis, of a syncretism to integrate particular elements in a general element without coming to weaken and to contradict this general element because this step imposes a tender on a group, claims the abandonment of certain particular elements. With term, the only choice is to accept or not the tender with the body of rules dominating. Once the synthesis carried out, the system can again rest in an opposition to progress of good quality for its leaders.

That does not raise any difficulty for a community whose culture is dynamic and progressist who opposes at a community traditionalist refusing the difference or the evolution. These two groups are invited to find a compromise going in the direction of progress, i.e. guaranteeing a better minimization of violence and risks of civil or religious conflicts, guaranteeing the development of a total knowledge resting on a marriage of their cultures or at least a complementarity of their values. Failing to find this compromise, these two groups appèlent an arbitration by other groups or an international institution gathering of the experts of the question. The common objective is in the exclusion of the companies based on the right to a particularism to dictate these rules with other groups having other values. The training of the means of release of the human beings develops the two sources of knowing: the initiatory source just like the intellectual source not being able only or together to assert a universal dimension, only one human dimension, dimension including/understanding our carnal terrestrial condition and mortal as well as the dimensions met through our spiritual advance and which nourish our hope of life after the life. This knowledge while remaining human  remainder also in humility of our human condition vis-a-vis to the mysteries of the life and it avoids with this humanity making destroying madnesses of the life and its environment. This allows an evolution of the human knowledge more regular, not called into question by the ignorance or the madness of certain leaders of systems of being able which already made regress this knowledge of several millenia, as that is the case in our Western civilization by throwing a taboo on the source of knowing initiatory and personal.

 

In conclusion, the alternative of the organization in network because it does not have recourse to fictions, that it does not maintain ideals and that it rejects the inherent Utopias with the systems of being able, is well the organization at the base of the flourishing periods which already humanity knew. We know the large one twists this organization in network for our current leading minorities: its power to produce and distribute wealths of excluding the appropriation from these richnesses by a minority. We know also the weakness of the organizations in networks: that their organizers who prefer death rather than to use the weapons to kill their similar, that to have people having made v?ux poverty to manage the Community property in the interest of all. It was the case for the first Christian communities as it was the case for the knights of the order of the Temple but if these women, these men, these children were massacred by the tyrants and the leaders of the systems of being able using the military force to satisfy their thirst for material richnesses, architectural testimonys on all our continents,  just like artistic works of these civilizations and these times based on organization in network, testify today still to a knowledge of which we have sorrow to suspect the existence. This knowledge will remain incomprehensible for which will be limited to its only even thorough intellectual knowledge at a universal stage as long as it will not have supplemented them with knowledge drawn from its own confrontation and meets with the mysteries of its life and its human condition, as long as it will not have to work out its total knowledge. Formerly the difficulties of communications, the ignorance of what the people of the distant regions did returned this work on the third impossible level and to fill this lack, this vacuum, the most cultivated people, with the most human motivations, could create the concept of public interest common to all bus this dimension exists indeed in the spirit from which wants to hope for and eliminate the causes from misfortune among humanity. Today we have these new data-processing technologies of communication, this technological revolution has like principal consequence on the level political, economic and social to reduce if not eliminate this recourse to fictions and dogmas obscure. Our data bases, the groupwares, the workflow of data processings are able to better make known to us the ones the others, to better select which works in the common interest and which seeks to maintain its system to be able on a group by legitimating its perversity either by the respect of an ancestral culture or a religion become antiquated by maintain dogmas obsolete, or by the stupid invocation of a particularism denying the general information even our human condition and the fact that our meetings with the inexpressible one, the mysteries of the life, proceed same manner everywhere on ground the some or human being, It is this work of reduction and elimination of the fictions and the Utopias which artificially cement our systems of being able, which is undertaken on this Web site in order to make collapse the fallacious coherence of these systems and leave place with new organizations in network. It is the place which we want to occupy among the new French revolutionists who work for a major change in the manners of organizing us in company. We remove this fiction of secularity to validate in the place work on the three social contracts into perpetual never becoming bus they will not reach the universal one.

The mysteries will remain mysteries, the fate of our humanity does not depend fortunately on the scientific resolution of these mysteries.Our to become is well on ground in a complementarity between our two sources of knowing but our total culture will remain human, completely human to serve all the human beings.To leave the ground temporarily, to leave our carnal envelope, to establish a dialogue of the heart for the heart, to cross the well of light and to obtain the power of the higher and double world, it is another adventure but which can live only with an aim of serving its next and humanity.This very particular way even is not opposed to the preceding one. It comes only to light it as any scout shows the best way for the group of which he forms part and who follows remotely behind him. With final, all will be found together but not on ground, probably more on the side of Shambhala and it does not matter the name of this place where good number among us already passed to reappear with the life during their human life.

The distinction communautarism and organization in network of communities rest well on a choice between two designs of the culture and our reasons of living and dying.The culture locked up under the weight of the traditions corresponds to a system of despotic and dogmatic power civil or religious: it is the communautarism with its leaven of terrorism, obscurantism and refusal of the division and opening to the other human beings, with the other forms of life.The culture gathering the choices of life and the manners of living and of liking together, is the result of work on the second level of contract in an organization in network.A system of being able will necessarily fight against another culture that his which will seek to impose its foreign traditions and the fiction of secularity is a means of fighting these foreign intellectual companies with the system.but a system cannot subscribe to the definition dynamic and alive of the culture only as long as it will preserve the operation of its system and will not need to be censured.Secularity is well a republican fiction of which the goal, in an ideology impressed of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and others, is to make the vacuum on the cultural level and monk between the citizens and the managing Nation of the common interest. It is well in the heart of the errors made in 1789 and which since, poison the life economic policy and social French. In this company, to remain on the interdict of the initiatory way pronounced into 320 with the Council of Nicée, is appropriate to him perfectly to crush any debate between spirituality and religion even when it can admit that the large spiritual Masters broke all or made evolved/moved the religions of their times (and died about it for the majority!).

 

The organization in network through its communities produces various cultures which seek to be exceeded by allowing exchanges between these communities for their material and immaterial reciprocal enrichment. This culture is not then any more an instrument of intellectual domination to the service of a system of being able, it is what it should never cease being: a place of exchange able to widen the human reports/ratios in communities increasingly vaster growing rich by the translation of the one and others of all that will remain mystery and yet if source of hope and life for humanity. Malraux wrote it: "we do not know yet (more) ressusciter deaths but here are which we are capable of ressusciter our dreams", our hope and we add, because we again know to cross the borders of our smallness of condition of human beings and to drink with the source of what lives in us, to use our creative spiritual dimension of freedom. Our freedom of conscience nourishes divisions within a community but then it is clear that a system of being able hierarchically higher becomes superfluous and useless. What our leaders of the systems of capacities can in their company occult very well this with their populations and in their companies not to teach it in our universities, our IEP or in the courses of ECJS of the colleges...except that there are always poets to intervene and break this kind of anti fables democratic or simply inhuman and stupidly causes of arguments.

For the poet, following Rimbaud, just like for each indicator, these sentences of the poet seeing can be said and repetitions on the terraces of the temple to the address of the defenders of the systems of being able engoncés in their fictions and their dogmas at the point to exile the dissidents who refuse to think like it would like the operation of their institutions:  "Exiled here I had a scene where to play the dramatic chiefs of?uvre of all the literatures. I would indicate the amazing richnesses to you. I observe the history of the treasures which you found. I see the continuation! My wisdom is as scorned as chaos. What is my nothing, near the stupor which awaits you? "

The religions are systems of being able just like our systems of political power, economic and social. That the latter to exist reject any dependence on the religions, that is to say ... but they are only quarrels between leading elites of the systems of being able to justify the legitimacy of their Utopias, these shares which will never be carried out in their systems. The poet cannot limit his life to the limits of these systems, it has another scene to build a total knowledge including all the literatures. He spends his time crossing the borders which limit the men in a smallness against nature. The weather has any only to be religious fanaticism of the ones and secularity of the others which seek to secure excesses of the first. The organization in network rests on the complementarity of the three forms of property and today we must restore the Community property and with this intention develop the degree of confidence among the members of the social groups. Beyond possible progress in nonviolent communication, the development of spirituality has the role to enable us to find our reasons to live and understand that they are the same ones as our reasons to die. The hope rests on the division of our reasons of living and dying.

This division in the heart of the organization in network has nothing to do with the defense of a secularity and the exclusion of the attempts communautarists which inevitably seek to destabilize any system to be able when exclude them from the system assembles their resistance networks vis-a-vis to the system. When a to be able system is organized to manage the spiritual dimension of its culture by organizing it like a trade of goods and religious services more the possible materialist, then the initiate, that which completed its involution and begins its human evolution, can present himself in the temple and drive out the merchants of them....and if one day that were done in the temple of Jerusalem, this relates to also all the other places of worship where to haggle over religious benefit, priest-merchants force obedience on rites which do not have anything a spiritual search but well of a mark of obedience to a system of religious or political power. To fight against these religious fanatics with the fiction of secularity cannot carry out well far. It is necessary to return in the temple and to drive out the merchants of them. Scientific rationalism hardly prepares with this kind of work, to deny the divine one is not used for nothing on this point! It is necessary to have a faith able to reverse the mountains... and the displays of the merchants of the temple! Not to exclude a religion and to put another of them at the place but to break any religion which arises in front of you, to break its dogmas obscure, to give in light the share of spirituality present at its origins and to marry this one with the other spiritual translations of the other social groups.

Secularity defends a system of political power, it does not constitute a base able to marry the cultures. We wish to remove the republican fiction of secularity not to release temptations communautarists and to give reasons to the movements of resistance against our systems of capacities but to make well enter in practice the marriage of the cultures, each one leaving its old dogmas, its old translations of the mysteries of the life to work out a total knowledge increasingly newer, more human, able to gather a division enters of the groups increasingly more because at the beginning the interpersonal contract between two human beings is always the same one, the human love nourishes same sources, the most intimate gestures of love and major are always the same ones and carry the same hope of life.

Spirituality brings a clear and clear response vis-a-vis to the manoeuvres of the religions to force their systems to be able on all the plans of the political organization as well as economic and social.

 

notice for the American Net surfers:

 the United States wants to be the country of freedom. They accept all the public demonstrations of the religions but when their soldiers leave to fight religious fanatics, they do not bring any message able to change these fanaticisms. In France, in Cluny and Clairvaux, the monks and the knights of the temple carried out a marriage of the cultures. They worked for a civil peace starting from a new vision of the world, a new management of the grounds and richnesses. The cross of the templiers carried later by Jeanne d' Arc. It was reproduced on the veils of the boats of Christophe Colomb.  The knight carries a vision of a more human world ; the soldier obeys the orders of his leaders and it obeys until committing war crimes. To accept religious capacities without seeking to include/understand them is not a sign of freedom but a sign of obscurantism carrying of the risks of future conflicts.

There is also in the history of the United States one moment when the advisability of setting up a more human organization   was prohibited and drawn aside.  It is a pity that towards 1850, the levelling values between men and women, between different coloured persons that the community of the Mormons lived, were not adopted by the american government. That would have allowed the abolition of slavery more quickly and avoided the war of Secession. The parties of the first colonists, the Quakers and the puritans drove out the Mormons of the East coast under pretext which their manners were not suitable. What did they make of evil? A woman who had lost her husband could join another couple and the woman of this couple accepted that her husband shares with it close relations so that it is not prohibited sexual intercourse. Does there exist a bond between this refusal of so human values and this American in power to make progress peace differently than under carpets of bombs? 

The team of Fileane.com wishes to return to the values of the time of the cathedrals which allowed a marriage of the cultures. We work for an organization based on an experiment of spiritual life and knowledge intellectual able to answer our reasons of living and dying, able to create a hope.

We work to make progress a knowledge gathering our spiritual experiments and our intellectual knowledge. We work for an organization of our companies in network and not to arrange freedoms or laiser-to make in systems of being able which carry out the people where they want. The power of the money can be higher than religious capacities but it is not used any more for nothing when religious fanaticisms could thrive for then coming to cut down it in attacks and cates of war. Secularity remains a parapet compared to a freedom laxist which does not make evolve/move the religious ideologies. But there is better than secularity: the marriage of the cultures in which only the best of a culture is preserved to supplement the best of another. In France, our history carries the beneficial marks of one of these last marriages of the cultures. We must resume this work and draw aside the most intolerable aspects of the religious capacities which surround us.

Many European religious communities exiled themselves in North America and they found areas to live there peacefully, far from the kings and the pope. But a religion carries in it the rules of a system of being able: it seeks to extend its capacity or at least to defend it, to refuse to see it evolving/moving. It chokes its share of spirituality. Spirituality is lived in silence and of the places suitable for the meditation, with the dialogue with our source of life. It is opposed to the public demonstrations religions, with a sail on the hair carried in the streets. Spirituality carries out the human being on the way of its meeting with its source of life then the guide in the moments of the division of this meeting. This division breaks the walls of the religions to make burst a new word present, a word which will be able to supplement the old writings but also to contradict them if these writings are used to found a system religious capacity.

 

 Freedom does not consist in living among contrary ideologies with the dignity of the human beings and which return a man or a woman to being lower than different than the point to persecute it in its way of living and in its sexuality. In the United States, freedom remained a dream. The vastness of the landscapes gives a taste of freedom but in the common values of its inhabitants, there is hardly trace of this freedom. Between doing what one wants and outward journey where one wants, there is a difference.

Freedom is a choice to live together and not the permission of living each one in its corner, its gatted communitie, behind its wall and its door equipped with a video camera. It obliges us to create a new culture, a manner of living together, each one going to essence, giving up in its education the rules which were used to the parents to establish their power, each one exceeding the rules of the old political powers to organize itself according to possibilities of its time.

 In France, the direction is read in the arrows of our cathedrals, since nearly thousand years. The cathedral was a place of life: the town council was held to with it; the Jews, the catholics came to request there. The tradesmen gave each other to it appointment and the in love ones too. It was normal because it was the center of the organization in network of the company. The catholic religious power had not taken yet its revenge and to impose its system absolute power. To accept religious powers can only consolidate one political civil power with the hands of a leading minority. American citizens who got excited of democracy devareint to realize it. Unless being particularly proud to be the country which counts the most facists, racists and people of extreme-right-hand side, even of Nazis. It will be necessary to again hoist veils with the cross templière on our ships to make a turn in Americas.

 

whole page      

   

le développement spirituel

  english translations   home   library