The starting point was what we have defined as «social anger» and it seems to me, on the other hand, however, that I examined it even if not with a very long speech, because I hoped that then with your questions we could examine it in more detail.
[…] By understanding anger and its peaks, you can come to understand how it can communicate, pass from one individual to another within a group, form transient archetypes, form group atmospheres and finally explode into violence, as we tried to describe in what we said before.
Starting from the individual it is possible to understand not only the anger of the individual but also the anger of the group, because the genesis is, in any case, in the individual and not in the group.
Let's say that social anger is made, however, of personal anger, individual of all members of the group expressing anger. So to understand social anger one can start from the top down, or one can also start from individual anger to understand general anger.
D – But going back to atmospheres: a group of people who experience different feelings, anger, happiness and the mixture that comes out of it: how does this contagion happen and what results does it give? Is it possible that a relative number of people who have a positive atmosphere can be able to decisively influence those who experience a negative condition of anger?
If it's a question of a few people to influence it is possible, when it comes to large groups it becomes much more difficult. Take what happened during the match: it was just a few people compared to the total number of people in the stadium, right? Suppose there were thirty thousand people, and five hundred were the angry ones, theoretically the calm twenty-nine thousand five hundred should have been able to create an atmosphere to calm the angry five hundred, right?
First of all, let's keep in mind that when there is the peak it is difficult to be able to stop the reactions because by now the reactions have started: it would be necessary that the atmosphere of the others had managed to influence the explosion of violence and anger of the others first five hundred people. But also think about something else: do you think the other twenty-nine thousand five hundred people were exempt from rabies?
- Readings for the interior: every day a short spiritual reading of the Cerchio Ifior and the Cerchio Firenze 77, up Whatsapp and Telegram.
- Summary of the philosophical teaching of the Ifior Circle: HOW CONSCIOUSNESS CREATES PERSONAL REALITY, you can order here the book. If you're reading this and want support, write.
Q – For example, the police didn't have a calming attitude...
Certainly, but the others also had their little personal angers, secondly, many could be angry because the game could not be seen, others could be angry because they ruined the image of the city… So the atmosphere they could throw, send to try to calming these other people wasn't actually pure, but carried with sé elements that could end up, I won't say with obtaining the opposite effect, but fuel instead of curbing the anger of that small group of people.
So, in summary: for a group of people to be able to stop, slow down, calm down another group of people who have a violent emotional reaction with their serenity, it is necessary for the first group of people to truly be able to express serenity, tranquility and peace : if there are other internal elements that do not satisfy these conditions, the attempt will certainly not be successful or will only affect the atmosphere of the group in a superficial way and, in any case, not enough to calm its peaks.
D – Physical proximity is needed...
This is not said because it also depends on how big the groups are and how strong the vibrations they transmit are.
D – To be able to do something like this, isn't it necessary to be able to understand the other's anger, perhaps even the motivation?
Let's take the case of just two people, so we limit ourselves to that and then, if anything, expand it to the group. If you have a person who is getting angry and you, on the other hand, are calm, serene and peaceful and you manage to make the other share your inner condition, you will see that the other will inevitably end up seeing their strong emotional reactions diminish and calm down. , but this will practically happen because your calm vibrations will bring tranquillity, they will change the rhythm of the other's disturbed vibrations and this without needing to know the other's reason.
Q – In a one to one relationship?
In a one-to-one relationship, sure; in a relationship with more people things become more complicated, also because it is more difficult to find many people who are truly in a condition of that type. On the other hand, the lone person who tries to calm a whole group is unlikely to really succeed, however serene and calm he may be, unless he is a Teacher to the last incarnation, then it's another matter. But an average, medium-tall person evolutionhowever it may be, it still doesn't have such vibrations as to truly be able to heal, slow down, calm down, balance the reactions of a group of people.
D – In a class of twenty twenty five I can take the door. I have no hope.
I wouldn't say so, also because many factors come into play; for example, the fact that you have a relationship with these people, the fact that they know you, the fact that they may or may not have respect and trust in you; all these are elements that already lead to moderate their peaks of anger.
Q – I was thinking about the case of Nazism, where there has been very violent behavior for a long period of time: does it always have to do with the peak or was there something different, because it lasted so long and was it so extreme?
It wasn't a matter of a peak of anger, it was more of an archetype created by several people who, however, had certainly not a high evolution, and therefore started from the low degree of the archetype. Little by little, all the people who had a strong need to feel strong, powerful, superior and had not yet reached understandings that could lead them to experience justice, brotherhood, ended up connecting to that archetype. equality or love.
D – Perhaps more than anger and resentment, a set of resentments?
But, you know, an archetype expresses different components, there isn't just one component: there was presumption, there was pride, there were many different elements, there was also some positive element in any case, even if it is difficult to see them, for example the idea of "belonging"even if distorted, of the members of the group, a basic idea which cannot be ignored in order to arrive at the concept of universal brotherhood. Let's not forget that we are talking about a very low level of archetype testing.
At the higher level, that is, at the point where all the possibilities offered by the archetype have been experienced and, consequently, the understanding has gradually structured itself, we find the concepts of «pacifism», «non-violence», «union with the others» which subsequently led to the formation of transitory archetypes such as those which gave life to the hippy movement, or to the New Age or to Gandhi's «non-violent revolt».
You will wonder if it was not possible to intervene to prevent what happened. You see, creatures, in the meantime it is not possible to go against karma, and I guarantee you that, from an individual karmic point of view, much of it has been resolved through, for example, the help given by many people to the persecuted categories of individuals.
Secondly, those events were supposed to make people who were not adherents of that archetype think and help them become aware and manifest what was inside them, but which was kept hidden inside by aIo afraid of losing some advantage for himself.
Q – I wanted to go back to anger and transitory archetypes: is it possible to change the manifestation of anger by changing the transitory archetype? I know that the transitory archetype changes, when it's finished another one is made with a different manifestation.
I would argue that when you are connected to a transitory archetype until you understand everything that the created archetype is meant to convey, you cannot detach from that archetype.
D – However, looking back over the centuries, the manifestation of anger has remained the same, always violent.
Yes, it's true. Let us remember, however, that man has in himself a legacy from his incarnations in animal form, and that animal reactions privilege first of all the survival of the individual and of the species, then the defense or attack mechanism; when DNA is built for a human individual, it still has elements in it that recall this past as an animal and which form the basis of character for how he then relates to reality (remember the concept of imprinting that we expressed years and years ago?).
So the instincts of violence, aggressive, defensive are still present in the individual because they have been part, for millennia, of his survival reactions within the animal world.
thank you