Bring people to the brink of approaching a new truth, exalting yourself above the ordinary thinking that fails to affirm itself.
The Greek thinkers did not have at hand the results of the precise observations and experiences that could have been made much later; they did not have the material facts and observations on which the discovery of the laws of nature was established in the 16th and 17th centuries; until today. But they were trying to explain their nature on the basis of observations made on their journeys, in craftsmen’s workshops, in me, in the living process of production. Some even underwent experiences in order to prove the truth of their support.
Thus, for example, Anaxagoras and Empedocles have proven by experience the material nature of the air. Empedocles experimented with a glass bell, showing that water can enter a vessel only when the air is removed.
Sicilian philosopher Empedocles (490-430 BC) claimed that the “roots” of the world, the roots of matter are: earth, water, air and fire, which is a solid, a liquid, a gas and a substance rarer than gas. And here is how this theory is demonstrated. If, for example, a green wood burns, you see the fire, which appears to the eye by its own light. The smoke disappears in the air. At the ends of the wood there is water, and the remaining ash has all the attributes of the earth.
Empedocles held that by uniting the four elements in different proportions one can explain all the endless variety of substances known to man, as crafted by the combination of four colors you can get all possible shades. From here to the primitive atomistic theory, there was only one step. *
Leadership: Is serving a science that expands your consciousness and the ability to experience new thinking patterns a way of expressing what you care to become part of you, something unclear, to be discovered and activated?
Can you run from the obligation to find new answering options to some questions that apparently have no answer? How deep is the interpretation that you give to the unknowns that gravitate around a single point of view? What connotations does your knowledge get when you take into consideration the apparition of ambiguities?
What happens to leadership resulted from a real, deep, objective knowledge of reality that in its rush for the sensational, it manages to overcome the understanding and acceptance power of other people? Oh well, it reaches a win-loss situation, in which you win, and the others lose. Science is what you discover through thinking and research, but with whom the rest of the world does not necessarily agree.
What you need to discover and activate in yourself by expanding science and thinking is the attempt to have an echo among others, it is the way to bring yourself into the future, to make known your aspiration of positioning in an increasingly competitive space of creation necessary for the development of the world.
Coming up with a new point of view in science it's like you'd impose for the people around you some fake and strange values that lack substance and contradict each other. Obviously, they will compare to your science and to their own existential condition, but in a fake way. They will see each other in a light that doesn't represent them, thinking of whether they're "broken" or not when it comes to their qualities. Because profiling yourself as a science means to place yourself above the narrow minds of the time.
Full of observations, the useful resource productions and the necessary efforts for promoting own science that proliferates on the stem of some advanced conceptions and mentalities, on the evolution stages of society, they really dominate when it comes to the degree of closeness or estrangement towards the rest of people. And the raw matter on which own science is established, regenerates and assemblies into solutions or in a multitude of absolute truths, that in turn are lost in the darkness of time if they're not generally accepted – even by the laymen.
Can the unique virtues of your science be implemented in front of the origin borders of leadership?
No matter how well-perceived your science about leadership is, selecting and including it in an ample thinking reconstruction context of other people that need to basically detach from the way in which they're integrated in the harmony of defining elements of a certain type of thinking, it can be achieved after drives close to your will, and not after a wise depth of your conscience, as it should be normal.
The unique virtues of your science can't be implemented outside the origin borders of leadership if their fruits ripe quicker than other people can collect. All that wonderful Eureka feeling when you discover something new is in vain, if it doesn't have any major impact on growing their performance level.
Virtues such as intelligence, vision, understanding, creativity, objectivity, and perseverance are not intended for divine confirmation through man, that is, they are not elevated to the level of God in the midst of the world, but are intended for a self-existence that takes place objectively in space and time. You have to be the spirit of challenge that reflects this design of the past and present in the future.
Science must be seen as a gesture of faith in a miracle you expect from God, not just as a gesture of openness to new experiences of creation and discovery.
If the science that you practice presents a huge resistance among the others, it means it's full of subtleties that must be reshaped, interpreted and shared in a conventional style, easier.
In consequence, the success of leadership depends on how well it complies with the requirements of people with a medium amount of knowledge. On this account, accepting a viable development potential through the interventions of a chosen science is decided by others. Taking into consideration, mainly the functional criteria (for example, how well can it apply to their existence), and not the creativity or superiority criteria.
The boundaries of leadership origin, meaning links to your previous actions and achievements, must be updated with the sense of supreme significance attributed to their own value in helping humanity not only through discoveries and creation, but by signaling the readiness to feel complete in what you are experiencing momentarily. Be yourself in your own universe, be authentic, you do not have to copy what someone else was doing in the same situation.
Leadership is the note of merit that science gains in struggling with a present that has no patience to become the past, and is required to know through a strategy of embracing events, facts and their consequences in an accessible and attractive form for all people.
Empedocles’ Glass Bell highlights that work of thought and creation that results in a result ready to be attributed to “faith in faith” or on the basis of a knowledge that at the same time offers the necessity and the novelty of demonstrating a unique point of view on certain phenomena or personal experiences.
* Note: M, Solomon - Lights in The Retort , Bucharest Scientific Publishing Housei, 1962.