​​Given that, the 'syllogistic structure / style - appears to be mainly for appearance - what purpose could it serve here? 

 

Perhaps the main purpose, is that it compels a consideration of such a vast topic - "the nature of power" - to be considered, in a pithy manner - with each individual axiom, reflecting on a particular "aspect of power."  Each axiom can be considered not just as a "separate principle" - in its own right - but can be fitted together, as modules, which when properly "constructed" - "conceived" - and "understood" - like a "form of trinity" - provide "insight" and "understanding" - beyond the apparent terseness of the axioms themselves.    They can be arranged together in a variety of "combinatory structures" - whereby - the very nature of "combination" - "ordering" and "structuring" - can present different facets / nuances on "the nature of power."   In a sentence, my arrangement of these axioms, may produce a different psychological effect / impact on the reader - than yours.  This is why the syllogistic form (by arrangement / appearance only) - is still useful.  

​

In SOTI teaching and method - the element / term - 'Exposition,' "strictly speaking" - has a specific meaning - this being the expression of a "Law" - "Principle" - or "Rule."  The element / term 'Exposition' - can also be used in a wider sense, in terms of "commentary," "comment," "exploration" or "analysis" - of an idea. 

​

These "Three Axioms Of Power" - deal with three separate elements / terms - the first one being - "position" - two - "politeness" - and three - the element / term "power" itself.  Stated as such, two of the terms - 'Position' and 'Politeness' - are unusual in considering 'Power.'

​

"Power depends on Position" -

It is so obvious, it is often overlooked - the "nature of power" and its application fundamentally depends on, who wills it - and who is subject to it.  It is often an absence of the recognition of this obvious fact - that leads people to consider - 'Power' more abstractly than is necessary.  'Power' rests on 'Position' - the "King" and the "Subject" are not alike - though they are both Human.

​

"Politeness" -

The second axiom - "Politeness is next to Power."  This is an acknowledgement of the recognition of "protocol" - and one could extend that to the element / term - 'Diplomacy' - in the exercise of Power.  Again, this is something which is often overlooked - it is often said, you either have 'Power' or you don't.  It is not that simple - 'Politeness' - being next to Power - has a "position" - within the "paradigm of Power" - its "nearness" - metaphorically speaking - shows that the writer regards as being important" - both "protocols" and "diplomacy" - in all exercises of 'Power' - be they the King or the Subject. 

 

The third axiom is stark!!!  - "Politeness is not Power!"

It deals with the "reality of power" - in particular, in relation to 'Politeness' - "Power's next friend."  This is the reality of "raw power" - "hard power" - the 'Power' - where the "next friend" ('Politeness') - is brushed aside - for "Politeness is not Power!"  In this third axiom, we are reminded - in a different setting - the aphorism relating to 'Unconditional Love.'  'Unconditional Love' remains one of the central SOTI teachings - but it too has "next friends" - these are -

 

(1) "Unconditional Love does not mean Unconditional Stupidity." - And further - 

 

(2) "Practice Unconditional Love - but keep your rocket in your pocket."

​

We therefore see that, 'Love' - like 'Power' - has "next friends" - which can severely qualify their nature.  

​