On the notion of the "will to power," you must realize that I did not say it was necessarily wrong. What I said is that it cannot be used as one of the supports for a moral principle! Nor can self-interest. One may act morally while acting in one's own self-interest, or even when acting from a position of power over others. However, it will usually be some other consideration than self-interest or power which is informing the moral aspects of the activity.

Second, you should beware of my innocuous-looking list of four principles. Three of them, and especially the even-numbered ones, contain quite subversive seeds. With them, I think most formal systems could possibly be undermined. (But then, can there be any doubt that Christ's message looks subversive, and that that is probably one reason that Christianity, as it is manifested in much of the world, reflects so little of it?)

__________________
evangelicalhumanist: Greek "eu"=good and "angelos"=messenger. Spreading the good news of Humanism.

Yeah I was just tossing that in there for clarification to anyone that mistook it. The thing is again - with the Will to Power... is that it is just that: subversive. You encapsulated the problem perfectly.

Regardless of paradigm - in order to progress you must break convention. I absolutely agree with everything you're stating!

Jesus was a rebel! Gandhi was a rebel! Einstein was a rebel! King was a rebel! - and at times they didn't even know it.

Of course the trick is to create the points of reference that attempt to be *more* universal as times change. And, as we know, "the times are a'changin."