Naturally

Legitimacy is a term widely used in law, political science, philosophy, sociology and, ultimately, is about all the social sciences and humanities, why not also in spirituality?

As legitimacy is, generally, the ethic quality of law and justice, which stems from a consensus in the face of evidence, can we associate legitimacy, naturally, to the spiritual postures?

For example, when someone performs a particular function (of practitioner, of teacher, (of today’s much-popular) function of master, or president of an association – do that person have legitimacy to do so?

What is the factual work, evident, that these people have experienced – in the first person –, which gives them legitimacy to perform their roles?

Are there results obtained empirically – in a consistent way –, which confers them enough legitimacy so they put themselves in these various social functions?

They feel they have legitimacy to do so and they do it?

Or they don’t yet have legitimacy to do so, but they still do it?

What would be more naturally normal?

This is an adaptation of a google translation from the original text in Portuguese:
(any help on improvement of this translation is highly appreciated)

Legitimidade é um termo muito usado no direito, na ciência política, na filosofia, na sociologia e, no fundo, dis respeito a todas as ciências sociais e humanas, por que não também, na espiritualidade?

Sendo a legitimidade, genericamente, a qualidade ética do direito e da justiça, que deriva de um consenso face a evidências, como se pode associar a legitimidade, naturalmente, a posturas espirituais?

Por exemplo, quando alguém exerce uma determinada função (de praticante, de professor, (da hoje em dia muito divulgada) função de mestre, ou de presidente de uma associação – terá essa pessoa legitimidade para o fazer?

Qual é o trabalho factual, evidente, que estas pessoas vivenciaram - na primeira pessoa -, que lhes confere legitimidade para desempenharem as suas funções?

Existem resultados obtidos empiricamente – de forma consistente -, que lhes atribua a legitimidade suficiente para se colocarem nestes vários papéis sociais?

Sentem que têm legitimidade para o fazer e fazem-no?

Ou sentem que não têm ainda legitimidade para o fazer, mas ainda assim fazem-no?

O que seria mais naturalmente normal?

If we are attentive to everyday language, can be very interesting to analyze what we verbalize.

Stay tuned.

I’ve bought a perfume on a website in December. By the midst of January as it didn’t arrived I’ve contacted the seller and asked about it. The seller immediately refunded my money. Meanwhile the perfume arrive two weeks after that. Consequently I’ve contacted the seller and repaid the perfume.

And the seller wrote: «It’s good to know there’s still honest people out there».

“Still”? What does this mean?

Is honesty becoming abnormal?

Is it rare to be honest?

Am I an abnormal by being honest?

Are these legitimate questions or am I becoming mentally ill?

Or maybe…

«Honesty is such a lonely word.
Everyone is so untrue.
Honesty is hardly ever heard.
And mostly what I need from you.»

Click and listen…

Billy Joel – Honesty

Honesty is natural, dishonesty is counter nature.

But this is just my opinion – what’s yours?

The silence, like so many other things, has several facets. It can be pacific, as well as appalling. It may be a partner of deep introspection, as an ally of what is abnormally normalized in society.

When lack of respect normalizes around us, and we dive into the deep seas of silence, we become – silent – allies of disrespect.

If dishonesty becomes normal in the circles of our relationships, and we take refuge in silence, we make a – silent – agreement with dishonesty.

If in our multiple relationships, “love” for power is stronger than the Power of Love, and we do not give voice to the second, forcing it to be silent, unvoiced, we gag it. And we ended up living, abnormally, an artificial “love”, while the more naturally normal course would be to live a genuine love.

Schhhh… don’t share this…