A summary of the teaching topics [IF83.4focus]

[...] But our aim is not to tell you «Things are like this because we say it!»: a position of this type is too comfortable and easily exploitable in order to obtain, maintain and, possibly, perpetuate the acquisition of power over the minds of the masses. 

More simply, we want you to accept our philosophical proposals also because you feel them true, logical and possible, not just because they make those strings vibrate within you which speak to your hope, your solitude, your desire for justice in a world, often, apparently unfair in its events. 

If a hypothetical and, we have said, unreachable and unknowable Absolute constitutes the basis of existence, it is however perhaps possible to hypothesize its existence in an acceptable way in other ways and with other elements which are not simply based on dogmas but which, at least, all of you can somehow verify how possible and real for your intimate and personal experience constituted, of course, also by an act of faith but not only: also constituted by logical elements that can be reached, linked together and, as such, rationalized. […] Vito

As those who preceded me told you, we have never wanted you to believe simply by faith, but we have always been quite careful to try to provide you with links to your reality, data that could be perceived as objective in your mind, sometimes doing it in a directly, sometimes more indirectly. 
Let's review the various concepts together. 

• 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.

The concept of Io, despite being made up of a sort of duplicity (illusory because it is fictitious, real because it is experienced as such) it is easily verifiable: it is enough to observe oneself to realize that often one reacts to life events in such a way as to give an image of sé which is not true. The fact that this is, in the long run and almost always, a source of problems and pain for the individual, is why we have pointed the finger at it trying to make you recognize it, since recognizing the source of one's pain is already a good step forward in getting to mitigate it, if not eliminate it over time or, at least, make it last less long. 

On the concept of evolution I do not think it is appropriate to spend many words so that you can have the logical, rational elements to understand and accept it. 
An example above all, immediate and understandable to anyone: observing yourself today and comparing it to yourself twenty years ago, the change can only be evident in an indisputable way. 

It is self-evident that your body has changed: if the visual change of your body weren't enough (for example a few extra pounds or a few thousand missing hairs) many other small signs indicate the change compared to twenty years earlier at a less visual level but, nevertheless, clearly perceptible and indicative of hidden internal changes operating at a physiological level: a lower resistance to fatigue, a different sense of appetite, changed sexual needs… 

If the physical-physiological change is evident, so is the emotional one. Often the individual does not realize it because he continuously updates the image he has of himself and does not pay attention to his own changes unless he encounters obstacles to his needs and, therefore, suffering, yet even your emotionality is changed over time: what used to amuse you is now perhaps indifferent to you, the type of music that involved you giving you emotions is different, you may have become easier to cry or more affected by the pain of others or more saddened or cheered by the events of who do you meet.

Your emotionality, without shadow of doubt, it is no longer the same as it was twenty years ago (whether it is better or worse, it is nonsense to ask yourself): your emotionality is consequent to the needs you have, therefore it is the most suitable one – era by era, if not even moment to moment – ​​to the experiences you have to go through. 

And your way of thinking? Very often you think or are told that you are always the same and you always think the same way. Nothing less true: the manifestation can also, apparently, be the same since it is harmonized with your character basis provided by imprinting and instinct, but in reality your way of thinking, of reasoning, is in any case very different from that of twenty years earlier, because the experiences you have gone through have provided you with new nuances, further perspectives, more complex reasoning skills. After all, even the mere fact of having used your thought for twenty years can only, at the very least, have taught you to handle it in a better way. 

But be careful: these are not changes in their own right, but the result of many small gradual changes that have transformed you until you are what you currently are. And this, if you think about it, is nothing more than the definition of the concept of evolution. 

A little more difficult, in my opinion, is to provide you with tangible proof of the existence of the reincarnation. 

Some of you may have had direct experience of sudden images that have flashed into your consciousness that are unrelated to your current life. Others have found themselves suddenly and inexplicably attracted to unknown people for no apparent reason, or have experienced a sudden repulsion towards certain people with no objective elements to refer to.

Still others found themselves in places they felt they knew as if they had spent many years there without, in reality, having ever been there: all indicative elements of other existences, of other relationships with other people and places which, although sometimes they may have other purely psychological explanations, many times they are, on the other hand, brief surfacings to the awareness of what has been experienced in previous existences. 

For those who have never had this type of feeling (but I think you've all had them, only that, often, they are a bit scary and, therefore, you tend to erase them from your memory) there is only the path of logic: the pain that there is in the world, the disparity of life between one individual and another (one rich, one poor, one happy, one desperate…) can be rationally (and not by dogma: too often religion got away with saying that it was God who wanted it, certainly not providing God with a very recommendable look) understood and accepted only by thinking that one has lived several times and that what one has not had in this life one has had in a previous one, or will have in a next one. 

The existence of imprinting has even been ascertained at a scientific level (science, in its presumption, very often thinks it knows and does not know, but sometimes – also – knows and does not realize that it knows something even more important than what it thought, losing opportunities d'oro for insights that would have been the bearers of new knowledge): already years ago Konrad Lorenz described the mechanism of imprinting starting from the observation of geese. For heaven's sake: don't think that we have treated you like geese; simply, since we affirm that we all pass through the animal kingdom during evolution, it was logical that the imprinting found at the animal level by Lorenz had some reason and some influence also on the human being! 

The same reasoning applies to instinct. There is no need for science to tell you that instinct exists and does not belong only to animals but is also one of the components of the human being: try to bring a hand close to the fire, freeing your mind from any thoughts and you will see that, just instinctively, you will withdraw your hand so as not to burn yourself. You could object: it is simply a reaction to heat dictated by experience, so much so that the child can easily burn himself, in these cases where has the instinct gone? 

Well done, if you have made this observation, you have used your mental body well, because, no doubt, this fact would seem a contradiction. 

It's actually not like that. It is known that, by placing an infant in deep water without any support, the little creature immediately (and almost always without being frightened) holds its breath and sketches swimming movements. This is conclusive evidence that an instinct is being acted upon which operates beyond the conscious awareness of the newborn. 

It remains unexplained why the child does not always react as often instinctively to fire or heat by burning himself. The reasons may be different but one, in my opinion, is essential: we have all had some animal experience in bodies that lived in water, but it is not certain that we can all have been animals that came into contact with fire, since fire in nature it is not such an easy condition to meet. 

And here we are, finally, to the archetypes. That transient archetypes exist I would say that you would have no reason to doubt it. Your society is built on them: any idea or model that a group of human beings refers to to address certain aspects of their life can be considered a transitory archetype. 

It is evident that, as we have told you, they change over time (the model provided by the Catholic religion which, still today, influences and directs the lives of many people, is certainly not the same one proposed by the Christian religion of the origins from which it claims to descend), just as it is evident that the same individual can adhere to the vibrations of different transitory archetypes at the same time and from this fact it is obvious that we have the explanation of the variety of social situations that may arise.
In short, everything is clearly evident under the eyes of those who want not only to observe but also to understand. 

A greater degree of difficulty may involve giving you some palpable element that makes you understand concretely the existence of permanent archetypes. 
These are broader vibratory ideas or patterns, with vibratory qualities such that they influence, act, direct not more or less large groups of people but the entire human race. 

Have you ever wondered why there are people who sacrifice their lives, in the irrepressible impulse of a moment, to save, say, the person who is falling under a train? Error in the instinct of self-preservation? Unconscious death instinct taken to the extreme? Mythologizing the concept of hero? 

I guarantee you that if these were the reasons it would be very difficult for the individual to override the life instinct, perhaps the strongest instinct that the individual acquires in the various incarnations. All the more so since, since these are actions followed by sudden impulses, for this very reason they are subject more than others to instinctive reactions. 

It is, therefore, reactions yes, apparently instinctive, but that they must go back to something more than mere instinct. That something more is what comes from the conscience, from the akasic body of the individual, which, in turn, is the one most directly able to react (when, due to the evolution achieved, it is able to understand them) to the dictates from the permanent archetypes.

In this case the permanent archetype of love for other creatures becomes stronger than any instinct the individual has within it, bypassing his rationality, his emotionality and, often, even the physical limits of the person himself who, in fact, frequently demonstrates a strength that would have been unimaginable. 

Here, creatures, this is a good example of the influence of permanent archetypes and, at the same time, a good example of how they can act on the individual while existing to act on the entire race. Scifo

We would like to translate this site into English with a neural translator: you want to make your little contribution?