The act of teaching is primary the interaction between the teacher and his disciples.
The order of persons acting together agrees with the fact that the first exercise his power over the second ones.
While such attribution of power is already supposed by the very act of teaching, it cannot be a large consent about the power belonging to what is taught by the teacher,
What do we expect as regards the power of teachings?
There are three kinds of interpretation:
1. The power of teachings is what the disciples can use for decrease the power exercised by the teacher over them;
2. The power of teachings serves as a means by which the teacher grows and even constitutes his power;
3. The power of teachings gets out from the relation of power between the teacher and his disciples, constituting itself as a third part and weakening simultaneously the power of the teacher and that belonging to his disciples.
The practice of teaching and the epistemological practice of uttering truths to be noticed by others testify about the large use of the first two possibilities.
But the third should be the condition of achievement for both. How could the master and the disciple keep their identity without attaching themselves to a neuter power? If not, they will be simple combatants on the field of words.
And often they accept such condition of simple fighters, with agreements and polite interaction. Without noticing themselves, they gave their power to the forms that result from such interaction, as, for instance, the form of a handbook or of the culture itself, and their powers become less important than what they created together. But it is not the due servitude to the third power.