Article disponible en français
The Waymakers · A word that circulates · 19 min
When your voices and your exchanges become articles and enrich the Dialogues.

When I opened these Dialogues to your contributions, I didn’t yet know what form this shared discourse would take — nor how deep it might go. I only knew that a true dialogue calls for more than marginal comments, however precious they may be: it calls for voices that engage freely with one another, respond patiently, and accept that they cannot conclude where honest thought forbids a conclusion.

The exchange you are about to read originated in the Comments section of the french version of my article The Wound of Duality—and the Return (1/3), the first text in a three-part series devoted to mapping non-dual paths within spiritual traditions. The series traverses six millennia-old traditions—from Sufism to Kabbalah, from Advaita Vedanta to Buddhism, from Taoism to Christian mysticism—before giving voice to two contemporary voices: the Revelation of Arès and the Dialogues with the Angel. It was precisely this last choice—treating these contemporary Words as fully-fledged paths in this mapping, on par with the millennia-old traditions—that lit the fuse!

Alexander Djis, an attentive and philosophically discerning reader, then pointed out in a comment what he calls “the subtle flaw” in this series of articles: I had not explicitly raised the question of the epistemic status of a Word that presents itself as received, transmitted, revealed. By granting it a structuring place in my comparisons, I was implicitly taking a position on its admissibility—without ever setting forth the criteria underlying that position. This is a fair observation, and it deserves more than a simple acknowledgment. It will be the subject of a future article.

But it was Patrick Thazard, a reader of the Dialogues and a pilgrim of Arès, who first took up the gauntlet—not to answer in my place, but because the question touched him in his own life. A conversation then unfolded between them, spanning four days of exchanges in the Comments section of the article. With uncommon rigor and fraternity, it perfectly illustrates what I hoped for when I opened the Dialogues to your participation: letting the diversity of your approaches and the richness of their encounters run freely.

Patrick and Alexander do not reach an agreement. The central question Alexander poses with disarming clarity — do there exist shareable criteria of discernment between contradictory revealed claims, or does spiritual truth remain irreducibly personal? — remains open at the end of their exchange, as it should when thought is honest. What develops between them is not a consensus, but something more precious: a space of mutual understanding, patiently achieved, sentence after sentence, without reduction or evasion — a genuine dialogue that advances reflection rather than closing it off with slogans and postures, which is unfortunately so common today.

I thank them both for agreeing to let me move and republish their comments here as they are, in the form of a full-fledged article—preserving their living dynamic, with its advances, its corrected misunderstandings, its rephrasings, and that beautiful final moment where fraternity takes over without erasing any of the differences that remain.

It falls to me, once this exchange has been read, to respond to the direct question Alexander addresses to me. I have begun to do so in response to his initial comment — but this will be the subject of the article announced above.

For now, I leave you with them. Feel free to continue the dialogue if you wish — here are their Substack profiles: Alexander Djis · Patrick Thazard.

Jérôme Nathanaël

Note: this dialogue was originally written in French. The translation is my own.

Subscribe now

The article and comment that sparked the exchange

And here is Alexander Djis’s initial comment, which serves as the starting point for this exchange:

“Dear Jérôme, your work on non-dual approaches in spiritual traditions has the merit of naming the fractures that persist between them rather than dissolving them, and in that it is precious. But since the first article, a tension persists in the reading, linked to a subtle flaw that perhaps deserves to be exposed in turn for this last article: that of the very status of contemporary revealed word.

The two texts you highlight as “contemporary paths” are not merely modern spiritual meditations. They carry a specific claim: that of a word received, transmitted, and given. By granting them such a place in your comparison, you are not merely making a documentary choice; you are engaging, even implicitly, a position on the admissibility of this type of source.

Yet this position, in your text, remains in the background.

This is a decisive point. For what authorizes us today to take a contemporary revealed claim seriously? The depth of the text? Its coherence? Its existential fruitfulness? Its transformative effect? Or the explicit recognition of an always-living possibility of revelation?

Without clarification, an ambiguity remains: these texts seem to play a more structuring role than mere modern testimony, without the position that renders this use fully coherent being laid out.”

Spiritual discernment and revealed word: dialogue between Patrick and Alexander

Patrick Thazard: It is of course not my place to answer on behalf of Jérôme Nathanaël, but I thank you for this pertinent question.

To your question “what authorizes us today to take a contemporary revealed claim seriously?”, it seems to me that nothing conceptually clear authorizes it... no more, for that matter, than the contemporaries of the Buddha or Jesus had a conceptually clear criterion for deciding on their personal relationship with them... Some contemporaries were “touched” back then, and many others were not, and this does not seem different to me today regarding contemporary revelations.

Of course, false prophets have existed in every age, just as they do today, and the more or less clear answer lies within the intimacy of each individual’s consciousness.

Personally, I am not at all bothered by someone telling me that my faith in “The Sign, or the Revelation of Arès” is a complete illusion, and for me it is not a matter of convincing them but of seeking what we can do together in peace. Every human relationship founded on unconditional love can only respect each person’s freedom.

Alexander Djis: Thank you for your response, which I understand and respect in its personal dimension. But it seems to me that it slightly shifts the initial question.

I was not asking why some people are touched and others are not, but whether there exist criteria that allow us to distinguish, beyond individual feeling, a word that is potentially true from a word that is simply lived as true.

In other words: can the fact of being inwardly touched suffice as a criterion of validity, or must it be supplemented by other forms of discernment?

For without this, all revealed claims — including those that contradict one another — become equally legitimate by the sole fact that they are sincerely lived, which makes the very question of truth difficult to formulate.

For my part, I have developed certain criteria of discernment. The question I raise here is therefore also: do others have them? And notably Jérôme, insofar as these texts occupy a structuring place in his approach?

Furthermore, regarding the idea that “the contemporaries of the Buddha or Jesus had no criterion,” it seems to me that there existed at least implicit forms of discernment: coherence of discourse, observable transformation, progressive recognition, confrontation with other schools, testing through time.

It was therefore not purely subjective, even if, over time, these criteria can dilute and be replaced by a more diffuse adherence. Looking forward to continuing the exchange.

Patrick Thazard: I think we have understood each other, my dear Alexander.

When I answer “no” to the existence of these famous objective criteria of discernment — therefore universal ones — I do not mean that faith is entirely subjective; I mean that faith has a large subjective dimension that is supported within the conscience by “objective” criteria provided by each person’s rational intelligence... As you say regarding yourself, this objectivity remains for me a personal and deeply intimate construction.

I do understand, however, your concern for objective criteria. This, of course, raises the question of truth in a strikingly obvious way—that is true... In the “spiritual” realm, the scientific approach carries no legitimacy for me — I say this as a former engineer. Nothing is provable, and this is in my view even an assumed choice of the Absolute...

Let us note that this question of truth is about to become further complicated by the imminent emergence, I believe, of false prophets conceived through AI — which I call Algorithmic Instinct, in order to leave intelligence to humans. We are not out of the woods yet.

It remains that your direct question to Jérôme Nathanaël is chiefly aimed at clarifying his approach in your eyes, and I can only leave him to respond if he so wishes.

Alexander Djis: Thank you for your response; I believe we do indeed understand each other on what is at stake. I nevertheless perceive a point of tension that remains open.

When you evoke “objective” criteria constructed inwardly by each person, it seems to me that we are shifting registers: what is then called objectivity becomes in reality a stabilized subjectivity. This is not a problem in itself, but it makes it difficult for truly shareable criteria to exist — ones that would allow us to distinguish between potentially contradictory revealed claims.

My question, therefore, is not so much about the content or sincerity of the experience, but about the conditions that make possible a discernment that transcends the individual. It is within this framework that I introduce another angle: that of the very architecture of revelations.

Regardless of their content or resonance (which will always be culturally situated), a discrepancy remains that puzzles me: a claim to universality carried by modes of emergence that are systematically localized, singular, and uncorrelated with one another.

If one supposes a supra-human source, the question then becomes less “what is said” than “how it is made manifest.”

Why an isolated revelation, inscribed in a single psyche, a single language, a single culture, rather than a simultaneous, multi-conscious emergence allowing a form of cross-validation without constraining individual freedom?

My inquiry does not aim to invalidate these texts, but to understand whether their mode of appearance is coherent with the universal claim they bear. And here the engineer certainly has an idea on this, especially if his thinking has become systemic. For if we view a revelation as a transmission system, does its architecture not already in itself carry information about its nature? In other words, regardless of the content, does the fact that it is localized, non-redundant, dependent on a single recipient, and lacking independent cross-validation not represent something worth questioning — especially if it lays claim to universal scope?

Patrick Thazard: Thank you again for this pertinent question.

To attempt an answer, I will take an example: the miracle of Fátima. I copy here the opening of the Wikipedia article:

“The Miracle of the Sun, or the dance of the sun, is a celestial phenomenon said to have been observed on October 13, 1917, in Fátima, at noon (solar time, or 1:45 PM legal time), in the context of the Marian apparitions of Fátima, by 40,000 to 50,000 people.”

Good grief, 40,000 witnesses, some of whom came specifically to mock it! How was this interpreted?

Among this crowd who witnessed the impressive “miracle,” the details of which I will skip, committed materialists estimated that this event, inexplicable by the science of their time, was of natural origin — regardless of whether there is still no clear explanation in 2026; science might find one in 3026, who knows? Other witnesses converted to the Catholic faith, and others simply decided to tuck this memory away at the back of their minds to avoid the headache... What a diversity of interpretations! Fátima is only one example I could multiply across every religion.

And I, a century later, acknowledge the likely existence of a miracle at Fátima, but the bare fact does not convert me to the Catholic faith. Like every human being, I am free to use my subjectivity and my intelligence to form an opinion or an attitude toward this “miracle” backed by solid testimonies.

I sometimes say that the human being is an incarnated god who fears his own divinity. This is subconscious of course, but this fear is respected by the Creator, by Life, in every era. Life speaks to us with Love through the means of prophets, all the while knowing that Humanity has moved away from It through a more or less conscious and gradual choice made long ago. Human freedom produces an infinity of sensibilities that Life respects infinitely.

The form of “cross-validation” you speak of is perhaps the desire to rationalize an existential choice that is, for me, far more than rational — like falling in love commits a life and is not rational. Moreover, even a pure atheist is not rational when he stakes his life on the non-existence of God, for he cannot prove it logically; his atheism is a form of faith. But nothing of course prevents you from seeking this cross-validation if that is the criterion you set for yourself in your personal journey.

Frankly, my response may be totally off base, but I did my best...

Alexander Djis: Thank you for your response; it is very insightful and I better understand your position. It seems to me, however, that we are not quite speaking on the same level.

The example of Fátima is interesting, for it shows that a phenomenon, even one shared by a large number of witnesses, can give rise to divergent interpretations. But this does not directly answer the question I was raising, which does not bear on the interpretation of an event, but on the status of a word that presents itself as universal.

When you evoke freedom of interpretation or the existential nature of choice, I partly agree with you. But this amounts to situating the question of truth at the level of the individual relationship, whereas I am questioning the possibility of a discernment that goes beyond that framework alone. In other words: does the fact that an experience is sincere, profound, or transformative suffice to consider it as potentially true beyond the one who lives it?

When you mention freedom of interpretation or the existential nature of choice, I agree with you in part. But that amounts to situating the question of truth at the level of the individual relationship, whereas I am questioning the possibility of discernment that goes beyond that framework alone. In other words: is the fact that an experience is sincere, profound, or transformative sufficient to consider it potentially true beyond the person experiencing it?

For if we answer yes, then all revealed claims — even those that contradict one another — become equivalent from the standpoint of truth, which seems to me to pose a difficulty. For example, on what grounds does one distinguish one revelation from another when they do not converge (such as the Grail Message of Abd-ru-shin)?

My question therefore remains open: do there exist, in your view, elements allowing us to conceive of a form of shareable discernment, even partial, or must we accept that this question can never leave the strictly personal register?

And if we retain this second option, another inquiry appears: what then founds the legitimacy of transmission — even of conviction — around these spiritual propositions, particularly when they are embedded in educational frameworks for children, where consciousness is not yet fully constituted (and is still oriented toward the search for recognition from others)?

These questions do not necessarily call for an immediate answer. They chiefly aim to explore the coherence between a claim to universality and the concrete conditions of its transmission.

Patrick Thazard: I do believe there exists “a form of shareable discernment, even partial,” while holding that faith belongs to a very intimate personal register.

My faith is not religious but spiritual — a fundamental difference in my view that would take too long to explain here, but Jérôme Nathanaël’s introductions offer a first glimpse. As the Source of my faith is for me the absolute Good — which is Love and Freedom — it carries no pretension to social universality, even if it does carry a pretension to have a universal impact over the long run without requering a general conversion of humanity. Acts of love are more creative than any faith.

The primary concrete condition for transmitting a spirituality is, in my eyes, to lead by example in one’s life without becoming a moralizer. The rest can become a form of domination, as is done in religions and atheist ideologies.

Transmitting one’s faith to one’s children through an intellectually solid educational framework seems to me to be a profound error. Every religious or atheist morality is an intellectual certainty that confines. I wish for everything to be under the sign of love — therefore of the child’s freedom, in keeping with their personality and their growing capacity for autonomy.

To move beyond generalities: it so happens that my daughters are in their thirties and do not share my faith, without friction or too much disappointment on my part. I believe I was more or less attentive to their intimate relationship with this question. This does not mean that there was no certain suffering for them in adolescence, for thinking autonomously is not always easy when facing a father. Silence was a practical and understandable solution for them.

Alexander Djis: Thank you for your response; it clarifies your position well, and I find it coherent in its intention.

I better understand your choice to situate faith in an intimate register, non-imposable, and to make the quality of acts the true place of expression of this orientation. On this point, I largely agree with you.

It seems to me, nonetheless, that this leaves open a fundamental question we have touched upon: if spiritual truth seeks neither to demonstrate itself, nor to transmit itself as such, nor to impose itself, then it largely escapes any framework of shareable discernment, and approaches an existential orientation rather than a truth in the strong sense.

This is not necessarily a problem in itself, but it changes the status of what we are talking about.

I therefore keep this inquiry in the background: do there exist, beyond the lived experience and the effects it produces, elements allowing us to distinguish different spiritual propositions other than by their personal resonance?

And I also ask myself, more broadly: does spirituality really need to rely on a form of revelation or message from a beyond in order to exist, or can it stand on its own, in a direct openness to what transcends the human?

In other words, from what point does recourse to a revealed word transform a spiritual approach into a form of religion?

Patrick Thazard: You write: “If spiritual truth seeks neither to demonstrate itself, nor to transmit itself as such, nor to impose itself...”

For me, absolute spiritual truth is inaccessible to human intelligence — no revealed word gives it — but relative truth seeks to transmit itself without demonstrating or imposing itself.

You write: “Does spirituality really need to rest on a form of revelation or message from a beyond in order to exist, or can it stand on its own, in a direct openness to what transcends the human?”

For me, spirituality is existential transcendence through acts of love and liberation — it is penitence. It is accessible to the most committed atheist, provided they will it. Louise Michel is for me a spiritual exemplar.

You write: “In other words, from what point does recourse to a revealed word transform a spiritual approach into a form of religion?”

It is the lack of penitence... What “The Sign, or the Revelation of Arès” says is that every dogma, every adulated clergy or theologian, every form of power over the people (even political), transforms a belief into a religion when there is not enough concrete penitence among the faithful. This is the sad trajectory of all great religions and all political hopes — and it is for this reason that the Creator, Life, chose to speak anew at Arès. One can therefore be a follower of a great religion and still be a penitent.

Of course, nothing guarantees that the followers — called Pilgrims of Arès — will succeed in maintaining over time their hope outside of religion. That depends entirely on them.

Alexander Djis: Thank you for your response; it clearly illustrates your position.

As I read your words, I seem to perceive a pattern that recurs throughout religious history: a new message comes along to reinterpret, correct, or revitalize older forms that, in its view, have become inadequate or corrupted. This process of reinterpretation and correction is understandable in itself.

But this is perhaps where, for me, a limitation lies: once this dynamic relies on a new revelation to reinterpret previous ones, we enter a realm where discernment tends to fade in favor of an act of adherence.

And at this threshold, it seems to me that two attitudes become possible: recognize the internal coherence of the proposition and explore its meaning, or to refrain from adhering to it — not out of rejection, but because the passage toward the supra-human origin cannot be crossed without a personal commitment that transcends the framework of shareable discernment.

For my part, I remain committed to the idea that human beings can attain a form of righteousness, transformation, and virtue without necessarily relying on a revealed word. Not in opposition to these paths, but independently of them.

This takes nothing away from your path, nor from the sincerity of your search, but it simply marks a difference of position on this precise point, which is no longer shareable.

Patrick Thazard: I am glad to see, my dear Alexander, that we have understood each other.

It is possible that your path of searching for virtue may bring you closer than me to the Creator, to Life, even in unbelief and in unconsciousness of this proximity. It is among other reasons why Jesus said 2,000 years ago: Do not judge.

This resonates with our theme of non-duality: everything that exists is One, is a Child of Love in infinite space.

Thank you for this spiritual exchange.

Alexander Djis: Thank you for this exchange, which will have allowed us to go to the end of a point rarely explored with such precision.

It seems to me that we have reached a structuring limit: the point where the question of truth can no longer be decided without engaging a fundamental posture.

On one side, an assumed trust in the intimate as the ultimate place of validation.

On the other, the search for a discernment that can, at least in part, be shared and confronted.

Between the two, there is not necessarily a synthesis — but a bifurcation.

Each person then advances according to what they are ready to recognize as source.

And perhaps the real issue is not to choose an answer, but to know how far one is willing to question what, within oneself, already gives an answer.

Subscribe now

A word of gratitude in closing

Thank you to Alexander and Patrick for the quality of their presence in this exchange — for the patience with which they listened to each other, the precision with which they responded, and the elegance with which they remained open where their paths diverge.

This dialogue was born spontaneously, in the comments, with no staging. That is precisely what gives it its value.

If something in this exchange has passed through you — a question that resonates, a nuance that catches, a perspective you would like to bring — the Comments section is there for you. Alexander and Patrick will be able to respond to you. And if you wish to contribute in turn to these Dialogues, in a more developed form, I remind you that the Waymakers section is open to your voice.

What circulates here belongs to no one — and all the better for it.

Jérôme Nathanaël

© 2026 - Dialogues of the New World — Jérôme Nathanaël

Join us

If you wish to offer a contribution of about one page on subjects related to the themes of these Dialogues, send me your proposal; it will be published under your initials, a pseudonym, or anonymously, as you prefer. Other readers will be able to respond in the comments and dialogue with you.

If you feel drawn to the approach of the Dialogues and would like to contribute to it or to join the community of Waymakers, I invite you to read the Opening page if you have not yet done so and then, so that we may get to know one another, to book a 45-minute video conversation — at no charge.

New here? The Opening page introduces the author, the project, how to take part, contact details, and the agenda.

Article disponible en français
The Waymakers · A word that circulates · 12 min
When your voices and your exchanges become articles and enrich the Dialogues.

Dear readers,

A few weeks ago, I invited you to participate in a three-part conversation, thereby launching the dialogical project I announced in my 2026 resolutions. This approach represented far more than a simple solicitation; it marked the beginning of a collective experience of words circulating, encountering one another, and mutually enriching each other. You will find this invitation in the article below.

This publication, Dialogues of the New World, is not the product of narcissism. I certainly express my enthusiasms, questionings, spiritual quest, and personal commitment to improving the world within it. However, the essence of this approach lies in the encounter with individuals who share the same questions and sense of responsibility for a world that must transform itself. With each article, I aspire to connect with different thoughts, sensitivities, and energies carried by engaged individuals.

I must confess that I had hoped for more participation. However, since I did not pursue a career in professional journalism — though I did edit the cultural pages of a local newspaper for a few years — I am still learning how to engage readers. What truly captures attention? How does one transform a silent reader into an active interlocutor? I continue to ask myself these questions with humility.

Having experienced it many times myself, I know how arduous the writing process can be. Expressing in words what stirs in the depths of our being is a significant challenge. Public speaking, even under the cover of anonymity, demands courage and vulnerability. Moreover, why engage in an endeavor whose contours and prospects remain uncertain and whose utility is not immediately apparent?

I therefore fully understand the reasons for this initial reserve. Nevertheless, I persist in believing in the feasibility and necessity of such a project: creating a space where the words, reflections, and intuitions of people mobilizing for the future intersect and fertilize one another. These women and men exist. They reflect intensely, act concretely, accept questioning themselves, and choose to demand more of themselves. They all share the same aspiration: to enable the emergence of a more authentically human civilization, one that is less traversed by violence and more animated by the urgency of justice. This civilization could finally be born and flourish on the earth we share.

I will continue to propose topics for discussion, open-ended questions, and themes for collective reflection. Today, however, I also extend a more direct invitation to you: If you are hesitant to participate, please help me understand your reservations and expectations. How can we refine this dialogical project, one of the fundamental axes of these Dialogues of the New World, together? Your words, even brief and uncertain, possess inestimable value in shaping the space of exchange that I am calling for.

It is urgent to me to encourage fruitful dialogue and open, constructive exchanges while, around us, disagreements are radicalizing and lies and deception are being exhibited shamelessly. Our words are being imprisoned in algorithmic machines, and they are progressively deserting our hearts and minds.

The virtues of genuine dialogue

Dialogue to understand and enrich one another; dialogue to build together; dialogue at the level of humanity, free from prejudices and sterile anger. Is this not the most authentic form of resistance today? Doesn’t this give us a tangible chance to restore meaning and trace the paths of a truly collective and shareable intelligence? Does this not affirm our common humanity while reminding us of the necessary humility to recognize that we ultimately know very little, including how to live together in harmony?

Does this practice of dialogue constitute the primary condition for rebuilding community in the noblest sense of the term? It allows us to escape the paralyzing narrowness of our mental refuges and defensive certainties. To finally begin advancing together toward the new world we envision?

To dialogue is already laying the foundations of a possible fraternity. I envision a dialogue in which each word enriches and honors the other — the opposite of sterile confrontations that recall rams clashing horns to win a female’s favor. In our contemporary arenas, protagonists collide to seduce an electorate, attract the favor of a community of supporters, impress and subdue an adversary, or gather the eager assent of admirers in search of idols.

The dialogue I wish to discuss with you and the nobility of speech I wish to invite you to are the opposite of that. They are words that circulate freely and expand through contact with others. They patiently build the foundations of a world habitable for all. This is only a beginning, certainly, but is it not in beginnings that the full power of possible transformations unfolds?

The most important thing is the authenticity of shared speech.

My dear readers,

I have a concrete proposal for you: once a month or every two months, I will dedicate an article to your contributions to the conversation. These texts may take two distinct forms:

• first, your responses to questions that I will pose in my articles,

• or, you may send me your own reflections on a subject close to your heart.

The only criterion is that your writing fits within the scope of these dialogues, which include spirituality, civilizational transformations, ethics, the issues of our time, and any existential questions that align with our shared perspective.

To participate, simply write to me at dialoguesen@substack.com.

Whether brief or developed, signed with your name or under a pseudonym, your contributions will be welcomed with the same respect and attention. What matters is not whether it is “well written” according to some academic or literary norm, but rather the sincerity of your words, the authenticity of your search, and your sincere desire to contribute to this collective effort to understand and elevate one another.

The first participation of two readers

To inaugurate this dialogical practice in February, I present the valuable words of two readers who responded to the question I posed in my article, “A Word that circulates”. Their voices are the first living stones of the shared structure we are building together. I thank them warmly.

My three-part question invites us to explore our vulnerabilities, interior resources, and concrete commitments simultaneously.

Below are the contributions of these two readers.

Note: these contributions were originally written in French. The translation is my own.

First contribution:

(1) What crisis is affecting you the most right now?

“It is the collective crisis of the intelligence of the heart, suffocated by the vanity of cerebral intelligence, beginning with my own individual crisis. It would be easy for me, in a purely cerebral approach, to criticize my wife’s and daughters’ disinterest in my spiritual commitment. But through the heart, I accept the mystery of these three beings. It is not what we believe that is essential, but rather, our acts of love when we give the best of ourselves to others.”

(2) What practice, inner source, or commitment sustains you?

“It is the book The Sign or Revelation of Arès. After reading it, I was definitively convinced not by the text itself, but by the brutal perception of the total non-duality of the universe and Its Creator at the site of the supernatural events in Arès. I was also convinced by the humility and refusal to be a leader on the part of Michel Potay, the witness of this revelation, when I read one of his articles, ‘Option Solitude,’ written in 1990.”

(3) What concrete action—even a modest one—will you take to contribute to the common good?

“I am mobilized by speaking to passersby on the street to find, without trying to convince them, those who seek a spiritual life through action. This consists, in my view, of slowly and freely changing oneself by loving all humans, which I call penitence.

Two weeks ago, I sent N. a private email about spiritual topics. I felt that we did not understand each other. That same evening, however, Jeremy listened attentively when I told him, “There is no guaranteed method to change oneself. The human is a god who fears his divinity.” “Yes, he has forgotten it,” he replied. I then felt N.’s presence within me, as if he were helping me. My email had connected us, but only briefly.”

Patrick T.

Second contribution

(1) Which crisis is affecting you the most right now?

“Many contemporary crises affect me, but they don’t sadden me in and of themselves. What affects me profoundly is their common root: the retreat of the desire to embody virtue, not as an abstract ideal or moral posture, but as an internal necessity, expressed through choices, words, and actions.”

(2) What practice, inner source, or commitment sustains you?

“What sustains me is the cosmology of the Surveyors, heirs to an ancient age. It offers a vast and demanding interpretation of reality. This cosmology is inseparable from a profound distinction anchored in me: the difference between my responsibilities, choices, words, and actions, and systems over which I have no control.”

(3) What concrete action—even a modest one—will you take to contribute to the common good?

“The acts are too numerous to list without impoverishing them. The central act, the one that contains them all, is my constant vigilance for coherence in my actions and my patient search for the right word.

From this axis, gestures unfold naturally: I make my garden a living oasis, practice eco-driving, renounce fossil energies, adopt an essentially plant-based protein diet, produce vegetables outside of winter, and inscribe my professional activity in the field of renewable energies.”

Alexander Djis, author of “La Voie arc-en-ciel”, a french publication.

Subscribe now

The horizon of new fraternity

I am profoundly touched by these two contributions, which, despite their different formulations, testify to the same fundamental dynamic: the inseparable union of a need for virtue and a need for engagement. Patrick and Alexander each embody these two imperatives with their own sensibilities and very different frames of reference. Yet, it is clear to me that they both contribute to bringing clarity and peace to our world, which has such a desperate need for them, from their respective places of existence and through their singular means.

These testimonies reveal what could be the foundation of a New World: a civilization in which fraternal encounters are based not on common adhesion to doctrines or identity markers but on mutual recognition of an authentic spiritual life, embodied in concrete existence, free from ideological barriers, and shared in the common quest for renewed meaning. Patrick suggests this when he says, “It is not what we believe that is essential, but our acts of love when we give the best of ourselves to others.” This idea aligns with Alexander’s approach of “living virtue, not as an abstract ideal or moral stance, but as an internal necessity, embodied in choices, words, and actions.” These two formulations, nourished by different spiritual frames of reference, converge toward the same truth: the primacy of action over discourse and embodiment over profession of faith.

In this precise sense, I find myself in profound fraternity with these two individuals, and their testimonies fill me with genuine joy. I thank them from the bottom of my heart!

Here is my contribution to the proposed exercise!

(1) Which crisis is affecting you the most right now?

Our epoch confronts multiple crises, but the one that seems to me to be at the epicenter of all the others is the loss of meaning. This loss leads to the impoverishment of the interior richness that can only be built through the quest for meaning. This crisis is exacerbated by the degradation and impoverishment of language, which has become an instrument of manipulation rather than a vehicle for truth. It is also exacerbated by the inundation of images that saturate our consciousness without nourishing it.

In the face of this void, there are two responses: frenzied consumerism in all its forms or the descent into various radicalisms—political, religious, identitarian, and national. Meanwhile, anger and invective colonize public spaces, violence insinuates itself into interpersonal relations, and the social bond transforms into a permanent battlefield.”

(2) What practice, inner source, or commitment sustains you?

“What sustains me is my daily commitment to becoming a better version of myself and making room within me for a greater Presence. This requires ridding myself of selfishness, cowardice, and laziness and cultivating unconditional love, courage to remain upright in the middle of the night, and a taste for effort and surpassing. When this will weakens, it is renewed through the frequent contemplation of the Words of Life that refresh my mind and heart.”

(3) What concrete action—even a modest one—will you take to contribute to the common good?

“I strive to align my thoughts, words, and actions with the necessity of virtue so that perhaps one day I may demonstrate that another life is possible—one that is broader and more worthy of human nobility. This life is described in an ancient sacred text, the Rig-Veda, as ‘daughter of Heaven through the Body of Earth.’ For example, this means devoting myself to suffering individuals in my profession as a therapist, encouraging each person to care for life—their own and that of all living things—working to propagate the hope of transforming the world through personal improvement, and writing and dialoguing publicly to disseminate ideas that promote an awakening of consciousness and a sense of responsibility.”

Now it's your turn!

Patrick and Alexander have paved the way for you. Follow them and share your thoughts and feelings about their testimonies. I join them in thanking you in advance. I say, “See you very soon!” with all my heart.

© 2026 - Dialogues of the New World — Jérôme Nathanaël

Join us

If you wish to offer a contribution of about one page on subjects related to the themes of these Dialogues, send me your proposal; it will be published under your initials, a pseudonym, or anonymously, as you prefer. Other readers will be able to respond in the comments and dialogue with you.

If you feel drawn to the approach of the Dialogues and would like to contribute to it or to join the community of Waymakers, I invite you to read the Opening page if you have not yet done so and then, so that we may get to know one another, to book a 45-minute video conversation — at no charge.

New here? The Opening page introduces the author, the project, how to take part, contact details, and the agenda.

Article disponible en français
The Waymakers · A word that circulates · 4 min
When your voices and your exchanges become articles and enrich the Dialogues.

My dear readers,

Today, I would like to invite you to join me in a project that is particularly close to my heart. I mentioned this project in my New Year’s greetings two weeks ago, and it has the potential to become the heart and soul of these dialogues.

I created this publication for two reasons. First, I want to share my thoughts on a free spiritual life, self-improvement, the legacy of traditions, and possible paths to a more livable world. Second, I created these Dialogues to be a place for real conversation open to anyone of good will, whatever their background or sensibility, who believes in the nobility of human beings and the need to transform the crises of our time into opportunities for individual and collective growth.

As I said in my New Year’s message, I don’t want this to remain a one-way exchange while you read and comment, which is valuable and for which I thank you. However, I believe that our times call for more: a voice that circulate, experiences that respond to one another, and inner paths that illuminate one another. In other words: a real dialogue, rather than a monologue, even an inspired one.

First, over the coming months, I will initiate exchanges with others engaged in these endeavors in the form of recorded video interviews or articles featuring dialogues between two people. This will broaden the field of perspectives and bring inspiring journeys into resonance with one another. These dialogues will be published approximately once every one to two months and will begin appearing as soon as I have prepared a few in advance to avoid falling behind schedule.

Second, I will offer you a question each month related to the concerns we share here. It will be open enough to welcome very different answers and deep enough to encourage genuine expression, whether it fits in a few lines or is more elaborate — without posturing or jargon. I will collect your responses and publish them in the form of an article. This article will encourage comments and exchanges, and hopefully foster a stronger sense of community. I would like to start this month, so you will find the first question at the end of this letter.

Third, I will begin to activate the chat as a living channel—a space where all subscribers to these Dialogues can express themselves freely, exchange ideas, suggest topics, ask questions, and recommend readings. To start, I am opening a thread where you can respond to these ideas, give me your opinion, and ask questions about more interactive communication.

I sincerely hope that these new perspectives will encourage you to share your insights, hopes, and doubts here. Together, we can gradually build a community of mutual support and spiritual sharing.

With all my heart,

Jérôme Nathanaël

Subscribe now

First question (to initiate the dialogue)

To start an initial dialogue that will be published, I propose the following three-part question. It allows us to situate ourselves in the current era, in our inner lives, and in our way of contributing to the common good. Your answers will help me better understand your current thoughts, which I will take into account when proposing future themes and formats.

Here is the question:

(1) What crisis is affecting you the most right now?

(2) What practice, inner source, or commitment sustains you?

(3) What concrete action—even a modest one—will you take to contribute to the common good?

To ensure the final compilation remains readable and shareable, I suggest the following format: a brief or more elaborate contribution limited to approximately about 250 words (or roughly 1,500 characters including spaces).

If you receive the newsletter, you can reply directly to this email, or you can send your text to dialoguesen@substack.com. If you would like your response to be published anonymously, please let me know. All subscribers are welcome to participate. I will accept contributions until the end of the first week of February for publication in mid-February.

I look forward to reading your responses!

© 2026 - Dialogues of the New World — Jérôme Nathanaël

Join us

If you wish to offer a contribution of about one page on subjects related to the themes of these Dialogues, send me your proposal; it will be published under your initials, a pseudonym, or anonymously, as you prefer. Other readers will be able to respond in the comments and dialogue with you.

If you feel drawn to the approach of the Dialogues and would like to contribute to it or to join the community of Waymakers, I invite you to read the Opening page if you have not yet done so and then, so that we may get to know one another, to book a 45-minute video conversation — at no charge.

New here? The Opening page introduces the author, the project, how to take part, contact details, and the agenda.

Article disponible en français
The Waymakers · Messages · 4 min
Sharing what is coming, so that the conversation may keep flowing and the community keep growing.

My dear friends,

We are entering a year whose turbulence is impossible to predict. Crises are mounting, fears are multiplying, and rhetoric is hardening. Amidst this chaos, I offer you my best wishes not as a mere formality but as an act of spiritual resistance.

May we have the strength not to give in to the temptation to withdraw, the clarity to discern truth amidst lies, and the courage to remain open when everything around us encourages us to close off. Above all, I wish us the will to be the best we can be day after day and the desire to improve the world in concrete ways.

As we enter this new calendar year, I also want to thank you. Thank you for remaining faithful to these Dialogues of the New World, despite their irregularity, metamorphoses, and my own missteps. In them, I share personal reflections on living a spiritual life rooted in our current reality. I hope they nurture a more livable future for humanity.

I have questions that many of us have: How can we continue to believe in humanity when everything seems to conspire to make us despair? How can we cultivate an inner life when the world is burning? How can we talk about love, justice, and peace without being naive or idealistic? Above all, how can we contribute to a future that is more just, happier, and worthy of humanity?

Today, several hundred of you read my blog. Some of you have written messages that touched me deeply. So far, however, our relationship has remained fairly one-sided: I write, you read, and sometimes you comment. This is valuable, and I am grateful. But the Dialogues of the New World were not designed to be a monologue, and our times need more than juxtaposed solitudes.

This year, I would like this place to become more of what its name promises: a space where your voices can resonate, where our spiritual paths can cross and enrich each other, where we can share our meditations and experiences, and where we can meet other spiritual seekers. It should be a place where, over time, a community of thought and heart is formed.

I need to hear more from you than just brief reactions. How are you navigating these questions? What helps you concretely? What practices support you? What gives you hope? I am convinced of one thing: we will not face the trials ahead alone. We need each other—our shared questions, our acknowledged fragilities, and our collective hopes.

I don’t yet know exactly how this will take shape. I will feel my way, and perhaps you will too. Some attempts will fail. That’s okay. What matters is the intention to break free from the spiritual isolation of our times and relearn how to connect with one another.

To start this process, I will soon suggest an experiment: a question for us to meditate on together. If you wish, you can send me your thoughts. I will publish a selection of them anonymously and respond to them. Then, together, we will see what emerges.

But first, I would like to ask you: Does this direction speak to you? Are you interested in this dialogue? Respond in the comments or by email, whichever you prefer. In a few lines, tell me what spiritual questions are on your mind at the start of this new year.

I look forward to reading your responses and getting to know you better. In the meantime, I wish us all a year of fruitful and fraternal dialogue.

Thank you for your trust. My heart goes out to all of you for this new year.

Jérôme Nathanaël, from Paris, France.

Subscribe now

© 2026 - Dialogues of the New World — Jérôme Nathanaël

Join us

If this message speaks to you, let us know in the comments, send me an email, or pass the information on to someone who might be interested.

If you feel drawn to the approach of the Dialogues and would like to contribute to it or to join the community of Waymakers, I invite you to read the Opening page if you have not yet done so and then, so that we may get to know one another, to book a 45-minute video conversation — at no charge.

New here? The Opening page introduces the author, the project, how to take part, contact details, and the agenda.