24 july 2023 (251US)
Truth is uncountable: What can I say to raise awareness?
While working hard to prepare the 50th
anniversary edition of The Arès Revelation planned in
2024, I once more wanted briefly to depict the supernatural
events just as I had experienced them in Arès in 1974 and 1977,
and while respecting the truth as much as I can to write
for a world which has almost completely stopped reading and
which can hardly agreed on a transcendental testimony, even
though very heartfelt, because their capability of
accepting it is not contingent on a sincere story, but it is so
on the challenges brought about by the meaning of the testimony.
Everybody has noticed that passionately neutral
items about unexpected facts, which the livings discuss very
often as bodies of materialism, as refusers and sometimes as
malicious tongues, seldom as interested persons, and very seldom
as persons that make a commitment. The Revelation of Arès raises very various theses. As
soon as some items like the supernatural are tackled, intelligence
has considerable difficulties thinking normally, because
natural personal trends, individual interests, habits, the
unverifiable, and so on, strain reason.
All turns tricky and contentious when the reality of a Power
that allegedly manages the Universe (12/4) should be
explored. Passions are stronger then, because that which is
involved is not knowledge, but it is life itself. If
someone has to acknowledge, to conclude a reading, that he
or she might be in position of endorsing an authority other than
that of materialistic physics or popular thinking or basic
psychology, he or she may be in position of questioning himself
or herself as a stand-alone being.
Countless are the human beings that consider that being free to
think and take decisions about anything in life is fundamental.
Their deep self might feels like it is being attacked not
regarding a potential search for truth, but regarding the
defense of freedom of thought, the right of free expression of
it, and the right to choose destiny.
It is not surprising then that The Revelation of Arès
causes responses which range from widespread indifférence to
mockery, disdain and even violence. A materialist considers that
looking for distant echoes of extraterrestrial lives is
more "scientific" or reasonable than reading a Message
having come from the Universe, but all over considers
that it does not result in an existential question about
humanity. Inversely, if you do not object to realize that God
exists— not the God of religion, but the Life (38/5) spread
(ii/4) over infinity—, together surrounds
us and lives in our depths, you may run the risk of a great
inner disruption. Preconceptions, passions, the search for peace
of mind, and so on, prevent from accepting the truth
particularly whenever it calls the approach of All into
While rewriting all the annotations for the fiftieth anniversary
edition of The Revelation of Arès I have been
clear about not being seen as a religion as well as not delving
into developments on God's nature. What I have written
deals with the need of love, forgiveness,
peace, spiritual intelligence and freedom
from all prejudices, that is, the need of that which The
Revelation of Arès calls penitence, and above all
the courage to search beyond the 'patency', that is, to embrace
In front of the widespread indifference which
the apostles of The Revelation of Arès face and in
front of the censorship by the social networks how can we
present an event like the Arès event?
We do not know, because that which has been seen and heard is One
as the Substance of Substances(xxxiv/6),
but it is innumerable as a display, because the lines that
had been thought along by the Witness are seldom the
same that are thought along by his listeners or readers.
I have stayed aware of that untold problematic issue as long as I
have worked prepating the fiftieth anniversary edition of The
Revelation of Arès.
God expressed his views in 1974 and 1977 in France where freedom
of expression has been long legalized, but freedom of expression
means nothing more than the fact that speaking and editing are
free. Now, it is also necessary to give people possibilities to
embark on a continuous process of following what the event teaches
and that is certainly not going to be easy to achieve.
The freedom to tell a truth, whenever the truth annoyed the
received opinion, was historically just threatened by the power of
the State and the settled authorities. Today the freedom of
telling the truth is hijacked by two opposing shifts. On a side in
the name of freedom of expression people can attend the most
extreme expressions of interest, disregard or rejection, and on
another side people still in the name of freedom of expression
note counterpoints inspired by ideological trends opposite or even
very conflic-ting, which are spread by the dominant mentality that
strives to impose its concept of that which is allowed to be told
and that which should be silenced.
The animosity against The Revelation of Arès is not
coming from some authorities or institutions who identify
themwelves formally, but rather from groups or collatérals
instutions which proceed by intimi-dation or preclusion hard to
The only boon of freedom of expressiont is to
enrich diversity of opinion barring juridictionally offending
opinion, but freedom of expression does not ensure that a
universal message can easily emerge from the shadows. Some people
can be confident Michel Potay really is the receptacle of a Divine
Word and support him strongly, of course, but other people retain
their right to oppose him, even if they act in bad faith. More
than a century went by until prophet Jesus' teaching
began changing a few behaviors in the world after
the crucifixion. We have to face adversity to defend our values as well as be
For slightly lower than fifty years I have faced coertions and
intimidations of all kinds, but I have usually kept that adversity
inside and thought that my brothers were able on their own to find
the best manner to promote The Revelation of Arès while
being aware that it is very difficult in any case. I think that by
and large they have done the best they could and that they have
had limited results because they have lacked time and a lot of
missionaries on a one side and that on another there is a time for
everything in history. If you are referred to history you can see
a good lot of instances of latenesses between causes and effects.
An adversary debate can lead to a kind of spontaneous development
of the Word's meaning just if it is free, but contrary to what
many people think we have not gotten there yet; the right time is
not that far, notwithstanding. In the end, falsehoods and denials
are invariably modulated by the prism of opposing incapacitations.
We do not have access to the public medias (broadcasting,
television, and so on.), which all work according to the same
operating methods. In our fractured pluralistic societies non only
arguments cope with each other, but also dreams cope with each
other — just have a look at environmentalists, wokists, and so on!
—. You cannot watch presentations of streams of ideas either on
social networks. The media platforms that programmers choose are
linked to algorithms that put forward the messages most shared in
politics, trade, science, etc., which are often very
emotionally-charged particularly with anger, envy or set ideas.
This produces a distortion which sometimes makes The
Revelation of Arès baffling.
We are being faced to a dilemma. From all quarters in the
world politics makes laws against the resurgence of faith
when based solely on love. Hence we live in a censorious
society, because nowhere on earth does law belong on goodness,
forgiveness, benevolence, and so on. Everywhere law
is based on remuneration: such-and-such a fault deserves
such-and-such a punishment. I am thinking of Tocqueville's words,
"I had left you deal with the abuse of freedom and I find you out
under a despot's feet," But if the State fails to take
action, the desires for hegemony of the pressure groups in
conflict might well lead to mayhem. In short, flexibility is
reduced all around.
A good place to start, some think, is by seeing debates as
important, because it is the only good way to discuss and stand up
against each other on equal terms. But how can human beings
discuss 'Words' that all have allegedly come down from the
infinite Eon? Engaging mankind in spiritual debate cannot be the
solution; freedom of expression leads nowhere when there are
nothing but dominating beliefs.
A certain amount, a not very high one, of debating activity may be
part of the solution. Some associations have been trying
to initiate it on the Web. They usually are users of social
networks, they are certain to have some role to play in the search
for making concepts immediate, which were considered to be distant
previously. An indispensable provision for this would be to forget
about rivalry, which currently is not taken into consideration.
There is no freedom of expression whenever the Word that each
religion or subreligion reveres is imperatively willing to rule.
It is then necessary concurrently to grant other kinds of social
exchanges. Freedom of expression, I have ceaselessly retold, is
the problem, but is the solution as well, on the condition that
the debate is never distorted by cheating. In short, freedom
happens to result in excessive noise, but also is the
sole good means of preventing that very excess.
How can we complete Genesis and then quit it with anything but
slowness and progressivity? How can we quit the cave (just see
Plato) to the walls of which Adam chained himself by way
of anything but by groping very humbly? Among all the gross
warpings of the conditions of life that man has inflicted on
himself time (Rev of Arès 12/6) attracts
attention on himself. Time has made every change
slow and ensured that anything true and effective never comes to
man's mind fast. We grope and fumble while ascending to Good.Good has no pinnacle, because it has been unattainable
so far, it is the Life, the Father, the Saint,
which are that faraway. It is unreachable Good, because
it never stops ascending, sprawling, spreading(ii/4)
over time, but never comes close to paroxysm, as it has no
paroxystic potential. Good on Earth as it is is that
which is never normally sold, never derives from law, or from ways
of life, it is that which cannot be given by religion, or by
politics, or by morals. Good should always be a basic
need for humans just as it is an eternal basic need for the Father.Good is the boundless immeasurable Quality which is
indescribable and which makes all that takes place after death is
completely unknown and ineffable: the reports of heaven or hell in
the Kuran are nothing but tales for children. It is unlimited
immeasurable Good that makes God, as the continuous
Reactor of Good, is simultaneously the Eternal Fugitive
and Eternal Life.
Just as a learned man is a man that likes and has the time to
learn, an exponantial spiritual man is the man that is willing to
move outside his specific field of love, that
which is creative. Good is no more that which is
intended for internal use in the minimal loving being's
life, but it is absolute Good intended for external use
in the maximal loving being's life.
Man can grow into an active being in global creation, a cocreator
in the supreme eternal sense. In the materialistic
intellectual sense man at the same time or completely
is just a kind of agnostic being.
An agnostic says, "Creation may be seen as the integration of time
duration into chaos... The Bible can be taken this way, because it
mentions it in undertones: Earth was shapeless and empty,
tenebrae flew over abysses (chaos of matter) and
God's Spirit was hovering above waters (the duration that
creates order) (Genesis 1/2). The beginning is possible
because there was an evening and a morning, the first day
(Genesis 1/4). The next day will be the second day, and the
day after will be the third day, and so on, for to create is to
make things follow one another" (Emmanuel in "A comment of Genesis").