Extensive research of African Tradition Spiritual Literature helps one avoid violent mis-information, like the Western warriors borrowing, modifying and claiming Africans’ profound Words/Things. Example: Western literature falsely attributes “Principles” as having originated by ancient Greeks who, in reality, were a semi-barbaric people. Perhaps, original Spiritual concepts inside “Principle” came from Ancient Egyptian Mystical Philosophy where Cosmic Creation was explained as emanations out of the primeval mass. This mass of undifferentiated matter, called Nu or Ocean of Nun—i.e. the metaphorical Cosmic River System—gave rise to Atum-Ra (Ashby, Book of Dead p75). He, on the Divine Boat, symbolized his divinity by righteously flowing in the Nu’s Divine Path, derived from God’s Cosmic Genetic Androgynic plast Seed. The Cosmic River System consists of the Spiritual Elements of Unconditional Love, Truth, Reality, and the Natural. Hence, out of its flow, Ra (and those striving to reach the “Heaven Afterlife”) could extract Cosmic Spiritual Essences in such forms as Truth, Knowledge, Principles, and Wisdom so as to establish Ma’at (Cosmic Order) for sustaining all Cosmic Creations. These Theme concepts of Spiritual Principles were expanded during the Egyptian Old Kingdom (5660-4188 BC) by Black pharaohs (per-aa, “great house,” king’s palace, royal court). They were enlarged even more during the New Kingdom (1550-1069 BC) so as to describe the Ruler (i.e. the king) himself. When, centuries later, the Greeks borrowed these African components, they used the word “Pharaoh” (Greek, pero) to also embrace the “Prince,” since he had royal weight and power. The Latin “Principium” referred to prince, chief, leader, ruler, first in power, and one who makes a beginning. In the Greeks modeling of Egyptian kings (who were normally sons and heirs of their immediate predecessors), Greek Princes were sons of the sovereign and their sons.
Whatever was best in things or privileges, Greek Princes would “take it” first, followed by those of lesser titles (e.g. Earls, Counts, Dukes). The Greeks preferred the “Prince” over the “King” since he was a rejuvenated and a renewed form of the King—the one with youth, vigor, glitter—the one in charge of big things, like birthing religious and secular laws. In effect, the Prince orchestrated order into human affairs. The Western world was more concerned with basic Material world “facts”—not the same as Truth + Winning by any means necessary. Hence, the ancient Greek Heraclitus said Conflict, not harmony, was the true and proper state for the maintenance of the good—“strife is justice—and war is the father of all” (Asante, Egyptian Philosophies p41). He taught usage of political dishonorableness, cunning, intrigue, and Victim suffering acts. In “The Prince,” Machiavelli’s (1469-1527) reinforced Rulers methods of aggression, ruthlessness, subordination of moral principles to gain political goals, to kill opponents, and to force all others to answer only to the ruler. Nothing has changed! Thereafter, “Principle” referred, not to a person, but to an accepted or professed man-made rule of amoral action/conduct justice for attaining control, domination, oppression, taking/grabbing the most adult toys. So, “The Game” of C15-C16 European “Gentlemen” focused on “Hedonism” (pleasure is the highest good) and Materialism. In pursuit of both, respectability was given to whatever is dishonorable, self-centered, and greedy. Meanwhile, there was accelerated focus on [European] “man” as the center of the universe + always right. This focus fashioned the definition of “Principle” as a fundamental, primary, or general man-made truth upon which other false “truths” depend. They arrogantly play “The Game”–using their own vaguely, ambiguously worded rules and/or fall back on unwritten rules only known to them–all in defiance of the law which lacks “accountability teeth” for those like them.
Such ambiguity was/is a deliberate mainstay pertaining to anything concerning Winning, which was/is done at all cost to Victims. Such ambiguity ensured “Gentlemen” would always win in a court of law. They instituted a persisting Competitive Triad of Principles to live by: (1) making others comply with their Rules; (2) being free to exhibit dishonesty/dishonorableness, amorality/immorality, and hypocrisy; and (3) bursting with being judgmental so as to tell others: “Do what I say, not as I do.” In short, Western Principles still lack in any point of stability; are absent an underlying moral theme; and have no accountability to any authority higher than [European] man, the judge of all!