"Any man who has a conviction whatsoever, there is a God, nay, he believes in God. For any belief postulates the absolute or supplement." (Cioran, 1959)
"Obedience is a vital need of the human soul. It is of two kinds of obedience to rules and obedience to human beings regarded as masterpieces. It implies consent, not not in respect of each order received, but a consent once and for all, subject only, where applicable, the requirements of conscience. It is necessary that it is generally recognized and foremost by the Heads, that the consent and not the fear of punishment or the lure of the reward is in fact the mainspring of obedience, so that the bid is never suspicious of servility. It must be also known that those who command obey their side, and it requires that the full hierarchy is goal oriented and whose value is the same size felt by all, from highest to lowest.
Obedience is a necessary food for the soul, a person who is permanently deprived is sick. Thus, any community is governed by a chief accountant who is sovereign in person lies in the hands of a patient.
Therefore, where a man is set for life at the head of social organization, it must be a symbol, not a leader, as is the case for the king of England must also limit its freedom conveniences more closely than that of any man of the people. In this way, effective leaders, but leaders have somebody above them;
idea that there are, let us recall , Maurras: religion is, or should serve, the strong protect the weak, limiting the power of the strong.
other hand they can without that continuity is broken, replace itself, and therefore each receive its indispensable part of obedience.
Those who submit masses of people through coercion and cruelty to deprive both of two vital food, freedom and obedience, for it is in the power of the masses to give their consent to the authority within that 'they undergo. Those who favor a situation where greed is the main mobile remove obedience to men, since consent is the principle which is not something that can be sold.
Thousand signs show that men of our time had long been starved of obedience. But we took the opportunity to give them to slavery. "(S. Weil, 1943)
Where we touch again the finger at the limits of the Fifth Republic, which, although it was run by a Catholic , not wanting to play on "greed" and the purchase of consent. (I recall that Rooting , whose text is derived, was originally written to feed the ideas of bodies such as CNR, whose program will influence the constitutions of the Fourth and Fifth Republics.) In a time of remembrance Gaulle, it must be remembered that the worm the fruit is long overdue.
(Indeed, to follow SW, capitalism and democracy are simply antithetical. We find again the ambiguities of Gaullism triumphant: there was consent, and that's why it has almost worked. But it was also a consent agreement to growth, "modernization" in comfort ... to slavery - which de Gaulle was at times painfully aware.)
This consent theory also points out that most " lay "of Levi-Strauss . Secular purpose, but without resorting the sentence is very interesting but general Cioran put emphasize it, we should see whether the exchange of reciprocity according to Levi-Strauss founded the state can be developed without a keystone, a kind of absence without greater reciprocity: "It must be also known that those who command obey their side." - At a time they obey God, and it can not be the same reciprocity. Remember Bernanos: "Between us there is that exchange only God gives himself." Not that God is not in an exchange relationship with the holder of power, a kind of system of reciprocal guarantees of legitimacy is that God, himself, may simply give, without reciprocity (and not only, of course, the holder of power): it is this possibility that has s' from the system of reciprocity that allows him to "hold."
(In a hierarchical society, at the other end of the scale can be found without giving the recipient: the renouncing Indian is the prototype, and its essential role in the perpetuation of Indian society. C is that it does not, it does not participate in the system of reciprocity is society, which involves the maintenance of that system.)
Returning to the comparison between Simone Weil and Levi-Strauss, and hypothesize that if the Indians seem to be able in some cases (it should be careful) to dispense with a keystone above is that the separation between sacred and profane, which I alluded hereby , Durkheim support (still not very Jewish Jew .. . it was the heyday of French Judaism) is not the same at home, even this distinction is irrelevant: the savage lives in the sacred, the ceremony ... in a more egalitarian system, which need not be locked at the top and bottom at once because there is not really high and low, and because the sacred is first present in each member of society.
Lawrence James, in a recent conference , detailed the various personifications of power and functions - warrior, religious ... - In traditional societies (broadly defined). This is a story nonlinear and can not be summarized in two words: I issue simply assumed that prioritization of society and secular areas of distinction and sacred are intertwined. This distinction can take very different forms in different places and eras. But it is obvious that a society like ours, which officially does not sacred, which is officially egalitarian (with different modalities such as egalitarianism between French and Anglo-Saxon egalitarianism, cf. Dumont) eventually deprive tools to understand what the consent - the last straw for "democracy"! - And obedience, the syntheses of the Protestant type and / or Kantian (the moral law within me ...) can not, despite their merits, fill all the holes made by modernity.
"conclude." Plato (and Cioran's words with which I began is a kind of "we are all Platonists) to Guenon's thought of the hierarchy is also known that it is strong and consistent. Via Daumal someone like Rene, who read Guénon and has read at Dumont and probably (but I am proof ...) as Simone Weil, this thinking continues to spread in the twentieth century . It is also possible that de Gaulle had personally met Guénon ... in the living room of Daniel Halevy, quai de l'Horloge in the very center of Paris, since Both met him (S. Lawrence, Daniel Halevy , Grasset, 2001, pp. 316-317), about the same period. It would be interesting to have confirmation ... In short, the idea is to revisit, as the brilliantly Simone Weil, the idea of consent, which can evoke democracy, supported the idea of hierarchy (and vice versa ...). This, as I pointed with my memories and modest means, reaching for inclusion in what could be a theory of power who seem, wrongly or rightly, remain the poor relations of the thoughts of the hierarchy and tradition, Indians. Because they are worth it ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment