The good-evil archetype and its variations 2 [sf25]

We have recently observed the concept of good/evil in the most generic way possible, taking care, above all, to make you notice the development of the concept itself over the centuries from the point of view of the dynamics of its development within the various human societies of which the hypothetical Urzuk was a representative of convenience to symbolize the most generic human being.

It is obvious from what has been said in our previous interventions that the idea "good/evil" can be traced back, as a genesis, to one of the most pregnant permanent archetypes as it involves the individual in his evolutionary path in all phases of his past history and will also, undoubtedly, involve him in his future history: the search for the good (possible as a tendency to get closer and closer to the even wider anchor "love" archetype) turns out to be, in the end, the backbone of the interiority of the individual, the still misunderstood goal that must be gradually specified in order to truly arrive at consonance with the vibrations of the archetype of love.

In the "Critique of Practical Reason" Kant sang the praises of "the starry sky above me and the moral law within me", going so far as to imply, more or less openly, that every human being has an innate ethical sense that transcends dogmas or the dictates of any religion and that, by itself, would already be per enough to direct him to the best way forward.

  • 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.

Relating this concept to the teachings that we have brought you over the years, this Kantian intuition comes very close to discovering the existence of those permanent archetypes which, we have said, resound in the Cosmos calling us like subliminal beacons towards the discovery of good and evil, of love and, finally, of God himself.

A correct observation that you could make to refute what I have just said would be the one that underlined how the concept of "good" (parallel to that of “evil”) took often extremely different connotations in the history of human beings. “And then – you might ask yourself and ask me – it is impossible to understand how it is possible that this Kantian innate sense or, to use our terminology, the influence of the permanent archetype in question has given way to the myriad of different conceptions of this one concept.

The answer would be quite immediate and intuitively understandable by resorting to other basic concepts of teaching such as the subjective perception of reality and the different degree of understanding of each individual who is about to give a connotation to the concept of "good": it is obvious that for the 'individual the concept of "good" is extremely relative as it is strictly influenced by one's perception of reality and the degree of understanding, of feel, reached up.

Io I wanted, however, to underline another detail which, together with those just mentioned, can contribute to giving a more detailed answer that explains more complexly the reason for the discrepancy between the concept of "good" of the permanent archetype and that elaborated by the human being .

Undoubtedly the "good" expressed by the permanent archetype is to be considered absolute, as it includes in itself all the possible nuances from "good" to "evil" which help to clarify it and make it complete. And the vibrations that accompany it are uniform and constant over time (a characteristic which – we said – unites all the typical vibrations of the permanent archetypes): the permanent archetype does not change over time but the vibratory beam it emanates, in its complexity, is absolutely identical in every time period and in every spatial position in which it operates.

What causes the discrepancy you may have pointed out is the fallout of the effects of the vibrations of the permanent pattern upon humanity, and this effect is the formation of the transient archetypes. These, in fact, are born from the attempt of a group of individuals close to each other evolution (and, consequently, close understanding) of unknowingly adjusting to the steady and steady vibrations emanating from the permanent template, yet without having an adequately structured understanding to be able to truly vibrate in unison with the vibration issued by the permanent template.

It follows that the conception of the "good" codified by the individual is built through approximate personal interpretations (often wrong or misleading) of what the individual "believes" to have fully understood, with results often very distant from what the archetype permanent constantly suggests as "real", so real that it can be considered absolute.

I would like you to pay a little more attention to this effect than you may have done up to now: each permanent archetype has its own “draft”, even in many copies often very different from each other, that is a transitory archetype which he tries to imitate, as far as it is made possible by the understanding of the group of people connected to it, what it perceives, through its perceptive and feeling possibilities, of the "absolute" idea expressed by the permanent archetype.

As you can see, the discourse is broadly structured and astonishingly complex, while ultimately being simple both in its logic, in its mechanics, and in the development of its structure.

[...] Let us return, therefore, to our concept of "good", leaving aside for the moment the more broadly philosophical answers and limiting ourselves to those simpler observations which, with greater ease, can be faced by each of you. 

A question that everyone can perceive waiting for an answer within himself is: “What is the 'good' for the individual?”.

It is obvious that there is no single answer to this question and it is for this reason that I would suggest that you observe the various points of view, the various perspectives in which it can be examined in search of a more complex picture than the commonly accepted one.

“What is good for my physical body?”.
The answer is obvious and trivial at first sight: one's physical body enjoys its maximum adherence to the good when each of its components is in perfect harmony, without imbalances, energy leaps, suffering and illnesses. After all, if you pay attention to your physical body you will realize that it is a perfect and complex mechanism which, in order to remain intact and manifest the "life" of the individual, requires that all the innumerable parts that compose it not only work in constant and adequate way but, above all, that these parts are able to interact and complete each other with all the others allowing the physical survival of the individual. 

To put it as Scifo might say, once again the principle of "so high, so low" can be identified: it is enough to assimilate the individual's body to the concept of "cosmos" to notice the analogy with what happens in the cosmos, allowing it to exist, or the interaction between its constituent parts, the need for their presence and adherence to the evolutionary drive that comes from Vibration First.

On the basis of these elements we could arrive at affirming that the greatest good for the individual's physical body is identifiable in its being in the ideal condition to carry out the task for which its existence is necessary, that is to allow the embodied individual to immerse oneself in the matter of the physical plane and interact with it in such a way as to be able to acquire, through the processes of experience, the greatest number of useful elements to allow the entire "individual", of which the physical body constitutes only one aspect, to proceed in its evolutionary path always adding new fragments of understanding that lead it more and more towards the reunion with the Whole.

In the absence, interruption or malfunction of its constituent parts - although there is a certain elasticity and compensation between the real elements - the body ends up no longer being able to be a useful tool and, therefore, more or less quickly it will degrade until it leads to abandonment of that physical matter by the individuality to which it was connected.

It all seems so obvious, it all seems so logical, it all seems so easy to the point of feeling a great amazement in realizing that man should easily come to understand that he must take care of his body as if it were a precious asset while, evidently, this happens only rarely and, usually, in moments in which physical suffering and the fear of being ill come into play.

In the last years of your history, your body has been continually harassed by degrading environmental conditions, by the pressing rhythms of life, by the birth of openly self-destructive tendencies such as the current practice of piercing the lips, nose, eyelids and so on to insert ornaments metallic and non.

It is legitimate to wonder why there is such a careless indifference (when it doesn't even border on self-harm) in the well-being of one's physicality. There are many possible answers, some so subjective that they should be given individually, but others, however, more easily generalized. Ombre

From the cycle Nuances of Feeling 2002-2007

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 comments on “The good-evil archetype and its declinations 2 [sf25]”

  1. It is clear how the "good-evil" archetype passes through the declinations of the transitory archetypes which then influence individual choices.

    Reply
  2. I would call the permanent archetype of the good with a capital letter: The "Good", to distinguish it from the (inter-)subjective declination of the transitory archetypes.

    Even if I struggle to understand the difference between the permanent archetype of Good and that of Love.

    Reply

Leave a comment