The person who needs the most always takes precedence [A18]

D – The interchange between people who are interested in certain problems, on everything that you teach, sometimes seems to me to be more counterproductive than constructive, because it collides with situations that are not yet ready to deal with certain topics, certain perspectives, certain values ​​of life.

But because, you see, if you face these discussions among yourselves without our presence it is one thing, and if you face them - as I said before - in our presence it is another thing. Certainly yours Io he realizes that he cannot fight with Scifo, with Moti or even just with Gneus, but he knows just as well, however, that he can fight with one of the other components or participants in the meetings.

Here, therefore, that if we are not present, it is easy for the ego of other individuals to take over and everyone tries to bring grist to his mill, thus making communication more difficult. Just think how simpler and more productive sessions with a few people are than those with 50-60 people.

D – Here, while you don't think, however, that it is a problem linked precisely to the fact that a person who is not ready for certain topics, willy-nilly, in perfect good faith, is disruptive; in the sense that he misleads and brings a wrong interpretation, so…

But, look, I've always been – even when I was alive – of the idea that, when a person lets himself be led astray by another, it's because he wants the other to lead him astray! If a person truly believes and feels right what she feels and believes, no other person can make her deflect from her behavior. If he deflects, it's because, in fact, his ego thinks there's a point in being deflected!

  • 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.

D – This without a doubt, but I meant the discussion diverted from what would be its normal path.

Certainly; the ego always tries to divert the discussion when it touches something that hurts it or that could theoretically hurt it, according to it.

Q – I also saw the perfect good faith of those who, not yet up to tackling a certain topic, divert it by talking about it. I like to consider the different evolution of us at different stages of life.

Certainly, but you see, pay attention to it for a moment: from the various discussions that have taken place in times and places in all these years and continuously, when a person does not yet have the basics of teaching, so maybe he says some nonsense, how many are those that actually explain to her what is reality or nonsense that she is saying and why shouldn't she tell her? No, the reaction is usually an attack; yet it should be you «the greats» who serve the least!

D – Yes but, for example, I think when there are adults arguing and there is a little boy who intervenes, he shifts the discussion to completely different reasons from those the adults were addressing, for obvious reasons. So, the discourse carried out on those bases has nothing to do with what the adults wanted to discuss. In my opinion, this often happens between us as well, that is, whoever talks about it with awareness at a certain level must necessarily relate to whoever, on the other hand, having a more reductive vision, tends to distort the very discourse that is being doing.

So keep one thing in mind: adults who hear a child trying to divert what they are saying should ask themselves the question: «What is more important for my responsibilities? Continue the conversation that interests me or try to make that child understand something?»

D – Both.

Absolutely no!

D – First the child is satisfied and then the discussion continues.

The person who needs the most always takes precedence; and, certainly, between the needs of the ego which has to discuss something evolved and the needs of a child which has to understand something, whoever takes precedence can only be the child. If not, it means that the individual is still a long way from understanding.

This, compared to what has been happening in the Circle over the years and even lately, means that the moment a «child of the Circle» proves that he hasn't understood something, then that person must become the most important, for those who have understood; and don't use that person's difficulties perhaps to destroy them psychologically, or verbally to show how good you are. Which happens very often, as you know.

On the other hand, that of a child in need is a useful experience to accept because you have had it and you do it continuously, all the time, with your children. How many times do you have guests in the house and the children get bored and start to be a little more boring, wilder, and you scold them, treat them badly, try to make them stop, and continue to talk calmly about the things that interested you? Well, I can understand that, after a day's work, maybe it might be nice to have a moment of relaxation with friends, but in that moment, be aware that you forget your responsibilities.

D - Sure. Basically, take advantage of the experience that presents itself to get to know a part of yourself.

The important thing - I repeat - is that, even if you make a mistake, you are aware that you are making a mistake.

D – Some dynamic scenes during school come to mind, especially adolescents – that is, between the adolescent's need to cause chaos and to carry out a programme, a project: it is a balance that I find difficult to find.

Indeed it is very difficult, especially in adolescence, where attention fluctuates quickly from one thing to another. Perhaps the main starting point is to try to capture attention; and then on that eventually build a relationship, a training or cognitive path.

D – Yes, however – rightly so, as you said – perhaps more today than in the past this attention is so fickle, so fluctuating, so precarious that capturing it is something a bit complex; first of all because you should capture everyone's attention and everyone has different needs and dynamics.

Ah, that's why I had always been convinced that the standardization of teaching is not good at any level; it was much better, for the possibility of understanding, rapport and so on, when there was the famous tutor who accompanied a few children at a time and who could therefore follow them in a better way, having a different exchange. Certainly, then there were other problems that currently no longer exist, but certainly the one-to-one ratio, even for those who have to teach, is much better than the one-to-one-hundred ratio.
But in reality this is not possible in your society.

D - I see that there is an abyss when, for some circumstances, you have 2-3 people, so that all the conditioning of the group is also broken, which in any case prevents the individual from expressing himself, because the individual must adapt to the progress of the otherwise the group remains cut off and this is a bit of a social death.

There would be another complex question, which I often ask myself, that is, is it better to leave a certain freedom of movement to ensure that the interaction between kids does the job it has to do, or else an imposition would instead be more useful, albeit in certainly reasonable terms, which somehow allows you to focus attention on a topic?

It cannot be generalised. You know very well that not only each individual, each boy, but each group of boys that is formed has different needs and characteristics; so it's all in the sensitivity of the teacher to be able to find the right balance between imposition and laxity. Certainly forcing kids to sit still, not move, as was once done, is not possible with the habits they have in your current life.

In the past, even just up to the last century, this was possible and it didn't even cause major damage because the habits of the archetypes societies of the time were different from yours. In your age, however, where everything is personalized, everything is image, everything is movement, everything is activity, it is difficult to convince a teenager to sit still for long periods of time. Always keep this in mind.

D – It's practically impossible, in short.

You can't examine kids without taking into account the social context in which they live, of course.

D – The problem is that, beyond my subject, which allows for a certain dynamic in this sense, it is clear that if you have to learn that minimum of mathematics, that minimum of Italian, that minimum of English...

But, look, I say one thing: kids' minds are sponges; if you managed to capture a boy's attention for 10 minutes every school hour, in those 10 minutes he would already learn everything he needs to learn in that hour. The other 50 minutes are superfluous, actually.

Therefore, teachers should not insist on doing heavy, repetitive, long and boring things, but really try to get 10 minutes of attention, so that what those kids have to learn that day they learn Truly. But it costs effort, unfortunately, and commitment. It's not like today's teaching class is all that missionary-minded! Excluding those present, of course!

2008-2017 Annals

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

1 comment on “The person who needs the most always takes precedence [A18]”

  1. I can only agree that the role of the teacher needs to be radically reviewed. In my opinion, there are also the necessary tools and freedoms within the school regulatory framework. The problem, as usual, must be referred to the individual: it is the individual teacher who must implement a revolution within himself, abandon certain transitory archetypes and open up to the new.

    Reply

Leave a comment