Q – Are we practically «condemned», in this moment of crisis, to go towards an escalation of violence? (Year 2010, ed)
Io I wouldn't say that. I would say that certain parts of society that perhaps have not yet understood certain elements tend to go towards violence, consequently violence will be feel harder. Let us also remember that violence has more prominence, it has more echo than what an act of love can usually have, even through your means of communication. On your newscasts there is never a front-page story that says "this person passionately kissed another person". The front page story is "so and so stabbed another person."
D – We, taken individually, since we know that this is the case, what can we do to shift the balance little by little, so that each of us, in his own small way, makes his contribution? What is the right attitude in which to place yourself?
There is only one possibility to do it and it is the one we have been preaching for thirty years: the possibility that each individual has to change things, reality, society and the world is to change himself. If you are not violent, you will never bring your violence outward because you have no violence, and the more people who manage to have no violence inward, the less violent society will become.
The absence of violence cannot be an imposition; of course you can limit its expression with laws, you can use coercive means, but until the individual, first one, then two, then a hundred, then a thousand, then a million fail to exclude or limit the violence within them, society will always be violent, whatever means may be used to curb or inhibit it. On the other hand, you yourselves are witnessing the difficulty with which, today as today, it is possible to curb these sudden episodes of violence.
D – Violence is nothing other than destroying, it is not building, while the further you go with theevolution building is, after all, an act of love, destroying is a simple thing that everyone can do.
Let's say that they are two sides of the same coin, as always one would not exist, it would not be understandable without the other. They are two necessary phases for the individual to go through, and therefore for society which, let us never forget, is in any case made up of individuals, and both lead, in the end, from one direction or the other, to understanding: even the most sooner or later he will come to understand that with violence he achieves nothing.
D – Rightly from the point of view of individual understanding, nothing changes, but I said that in the social fabric, destroying is the easiest thing for you because you don't need to commit yourself very much, building is very different.
Yes, theoretically I can agree with you, actually, apparently destroying is easier than building. But put yourself for a moment in the shoes of the destroyer: in reality, he directs violence first of all towards himself, he never passes unscathed by the exercise of violence, because however it may be, some part of his consciousness has figured it out and something will come back to him as a signal that his actions are wrong, and then - inevitably - his violence provokes a reaction from others.
And the individual needs others; as much as he may pretend not to need them, or to snub them or not to be interested in them, in reality, the moment he was truly alone he would realize that he lacks others, that he needs others.
In fact, if you think about it, in the end these people are hardly alone, they almost always work in a group because they need to feel loved and important within a group even if, perhaps, they realize that it's the wrong group. But their need for consideration and importance is so strong that it overrides any other evaluation.
- 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 – Is the angry reaction from a social point of view also subject to peaks like the individual one?
Right.
Q – What causes a peak to occur in a certain individual or social situation (to stay in this context), and why doesn't it occur in many other situations?
I would argue that the conditions for the peak to occur are essentially the same for the individual and for the group. The peak results from a buildup of vibrations that gets out of control at some point and it must in some way be expressed because otherwise the individual finds himself feeling too bad because he is too unbalanced with himself.
This happens in exactly the same way also for the group: the group continues to submit to tensions, therefore to receive and accumulate vibrations, obviously anger vibrations, and when they reach a certain point these vibrations must be released otherwise the whole group suffers.
The difference lies in the fact that when one is a single individual one has limited suffering as a personal one; when it comes to a group, on the other hand, the suffering for the individual becomes greater, because there are all the interactions between individual and individual that make this type of vibration even more painful for those who are experiencing them, since they feed on each other.
Q – How do you ensure that there is no accumulation of vibrations? Because it's as if there weren't an outlet valve, something fills up, fills up until you can't contain it anymore.
Here perhaps the situation is different from group to individual. In order to be able to keep the anger vibration and its peak under control and, little by little, dissolve, it is necessary for the individual to be able to deflect a portion of the vibrations that feed the peak towards other things, towards other situations, gradually decreasing the vibrational strength of the peak; in this way the anger remains (because there was no understanding), but it no longer runs the risk of becoming explosive, it manifests itself with a momentary reaction that is acceptable without becoming harmful to sé and for others.
From a certain point of view, it is somewhat the same connection that can be made with sexuality: in the last century, young people who manifested a particularly accentuated, particularly strong sexuality were often told that they had to play sports to be able to keep it more under control.
Here, this is a way to divert energies, in this case physical energies, from the accumulation of sexual energies (therefore mainly physical, in adolescence) which, otherwise, could accumulate and cause problems in the manifestation of these energies to the individual himself .
Now, if you could, when you begin to feel your tension growing (because you notice, if you are careful, that your peak is gradually rising and that there is a risk that it will then become too strong and explode outside ), to remove vibrations and energies from the growth of this peak, the peak will never be explosive.
The best thing to decrease the vibrational surge that can lead to a peak is to directly address the situation related to peak growth, trying to wane through mental considerations and emotional considerations, those vibrations that are growing stronger and stronger inside; in this way the emotional reaction will not be fed continuously and in turn also the peak will not reach the critical point. So it will be easier for feeling to be able to moderate these tensions that you have inside. Scifo
Chiaro