|
Religions I can not join the fervish and psychotic chorus of those who,
stimulated by the apparent aim of governors to assure freedom, democracy and
development to all people, considering war to terrorism as a fight of
civilization against evil. First because such a war would involve the action of good against
evil. What is good? It is easy to answer. It is good what has a moral value,
that is what is desired and craved for by man. And what is evil? It is easy
to answer again. Evil is what is bad or wrong from a moral point of view,
that is what damages causing pain and suffer. And who are their representatives? Let’s start with evil, it is
easier. Evil is represented by those who provoke the damage, pain, suffering,
fear, hatred, death. And who represents the good? We should say those living
honestly, telling the truth, loving, engaged for justice, freedom, equality,
well-being and safety for everybody against injustice, inequality, poorness,
and violence. It seems all clear. But let’s see the subjects, the actors acting for
good and evil. There is no doubt that the murder is evil and those carrying
out and organizing a murder make something bad. Anybody is the victim. It is
evil to deprive peoples of basic individual freedom, to abuse of power, to
intend wealth to manufacturing of weapons to the detriment of health, houses,
means of productions and culture. It is evil to concentrate wealth in very
little hands. And who’s acting for good? Without going much back in time it is
sufficient to remember that today who declares to love the minority of
humanity who consumes three forth of the whole wealth of the planet, that
sustains authoritative political systems, that exploits for its own advantage
the natural resources of poorest peoples, to whose are given alms which are
subsequently counted in dictating functional developments conditions to their
supremacy. If we consider the conflict as one of the main methods of social
interactions and as a situation of fight between two single or collective
subjects in front of different aims and the impossibility to realize them at
the same time. Such a situation depends on several factors such as poorness
and unequal social distribution and it is then difficult to recognize good
from evil between the fighting parties. Just so, because it is real armed war. A situation of serious contrast
between states, peoples and religions which is tried to be solved through
employment of weapons. A fight made of battles, warfare and terrorism. And terrorism, as war and warfare is a kind of armed fight using
strength and violence. To be against terrorism means to be against war and to
be against war means to be against terrorism. It does not matter if the fighting parties are armies or irregular
organizations, military of civil. What is important is the means they employ.
If the employed means are power and violence, then is armed fight. What are the differences of aims today, between states and peoples
which can not be realized at the same time? The conflict is between
political, economic, cultural and religious aims. The political aim regards the planet’s supremacy, which has to be the
dominating state, the pivot owing most powerful weapons, around which must
move as satellites all other states. The economic aim regards the control of natural resources, finance,
currencies and markets. The cultural aim regards mainly the consent method.
The religious aim regards the primacy of churches, doctrines and dogma. If we consider all these aims, the current conflict does not seems
like the first world wars, that did not have as aims all political, economic,
cultural and religious contrasts that today are at the base of a fight which
more or less openly involves all Countries and Nations. We have to go back of nine centuries to find, even if in a smaller
geographical context, a condition as the present one. We have to return to
the first crusade to find a series of contrast reasons so complete and
explosive to provoke such cruel human acts. At that time it was the Pope, Urbano II, to push for the action with
the following words: «… I induce you, or better is God himself to do it,
to persuade you with incitements as preachers of Christ, all, of any order,
horsemen and foot soldiers, rich and poor, so that you run to come to
Christians to chase from our territories that evil race». And he added: «… I tell to the presents and I order it
to the absents , but is God who wants it. For all who should leave, if they
died along the road or during the journey, in battle against infidels, There
will be an automatic remission of sins: and this I accord to those who will
leave, for the authority God gives me. It would be such a shame if such
perfidious, degenerate, demoniac people would win men strongly believing in
God and made bright by the name of Christ! Thus all of you hurry to battle
against unbelievers: a battle that should have been already started and win
from those who before, against any right, were used to fight against other
Christians and their personal wars! Thus that those who yesterday were
brigands become knights of Chris! Fight for good right against barbarians
those who before fought against brothers of blood! That they have in change
an never-ending present those who were mercenaries for little money! Those
who tired themselves corrupting their soul and body, fight finally for both.
As all those who seem sad and poor, there will be glad and wealthy. Those who
here are enemies of Christ, there will be his friends; do they not delay to
star: but once the winter has passed, rent proprieties to get money for the
journey and start walking». An example of ferociousness shown in the first crusade was the murder
carried out by crusaders during the conquest of Jerusalem, when once entered
into the city, they massacred the whole population, composed by 40.000 to
70.000 peoples. A Christian chronicler of the time describes with these words
what happened in Jerusalem in July 1099: «Our
soldiers chased them closely, killing with cutting blows, till the temple of
Salomon, where they did such a massacre to walk into blood up to ankles …
Streets were covered with lots o cut heads, hands and feet and everywhere you
had to open a space between dead horses and human corpses . Only (also then)
the Governor of Jerusalem, Iftiqar ad-Daura was saved from the fury of
crusaders». That situation which repetes itself, enlarged by more powerful
instruments compared to that time, must induce the human conscience to
reflect on possible consequences. Not only because every armed battle has its
victims but also because that we are fighting could be the last one. We are facing a new suicide method which overpasses the egoistic one,
the altruistic and anomic. The religious suicide of those believing in life
after death and the present for having used his own death as killing
instrument. This type of suicide makes completely different the situation we
have experienced during the “ cold war”, when each of the two fighters feared
that from one of its own action would have been brought about an immediate
reaction having same intensity. The kamikaze does not fear his own death, or at least he wins fear
believing he will go to a paradise where just for his sacrifice he will get a
award. It would be sufficient the idea of annihilation of all the others
through personal suicide would enter into the mind of someone owing nuclear
weapons to eliminate the whole human species from the Earth. This is the situation we have to recognize. Without fear but with as
much as possible reasonability and intelligence. In making the effort to understand reality we are facing, we could
also try to find inside ourselves another truth. Everyone may believe in what
he wants unless he does not damages other people. All of us have the right to
profess a faith and communicate it but the right to believe does not imply
the right to make it believe and impose it. Anyhow, in my opinion, we deceived ourselves. All the species of Homo sapiens has deceived itself. We deceived
ourselves when since the root of fear, fed by impotence towards death and
will for love, we have been under the illusion of a creating power, ordering
and preserving reality. There is no divinity, independently from the name it was given. There
is no Brahma, Jehovah, Uranus, Gee, God or Allah. The absolute principle
pervading universe is not a supreme creator, ordering and preserving reality
but energy without space nor time composed by elementary particles having an
organization constantly changing. Religions are dangers, deceptions, traps, false motivations that rise
in the limbic system of our brain from the process of reactions to stimuli and
environmental signs or as consequence of external stimuli, of inner processes
started by memory, by an association of sense perception or by an
introspection. The so called «motivations» are processes which make the activities of
an organism functional to the reach a goal. The main goal of human being is
happiness, intended as never-ending satisfaction of primary needs. Death
represents the extreme renunciation to the main goal. Instincts are the
reactions to environmental stimuli though a systems of innate behavioral
answers. The emotions are reactions of the organism due to inner processes.
The main emotions are hanger, pleasure, fear, love and hate. The origin of each religion, the original cause, is the reaction to
death. The aversion to death provokes the instinctive idea to react to the
environmental stimulus composed by the perception of others’ death. But it is
not sufficient to rise the need to find a solution The solution comes from
love. And here are the emotions, as reactions to an interior process. The religious idea comes from death and is expressed through love.
Love transforms the aversion to death in the idea of resurrection. Historical
studies prove that, after having collected and hunted to eat, after living
into caves, after discovering fire to heat himself and cook food, after
covering himself to protect himself from cold, man has reacted to death
conceiving positive powers (mana) to refer to in order to live longer and
negative powers (taboo) to chase. In pre-animistic cults the «mana» represented the primordial positive
religious behavior while the «taboo» was the negative side. Such cultural
system is indicated as the foundation from which all religions have developed
and develop. From 30.000 to 40.000 years ago, man has started to bury dead people
with the first funeral rites. There is already the idea to react to death but
not yet the overcoming of death. The practice to bury corpses and the
concerned rite are known since most ancient times. Also the simple act of
abandon of the corps to animals, in caves, towers, in water, on soil but even
more the practice to bury which was affirmed by the more complex societies
and especially in the sedentary ones and the practice to cremate had an
hygienic function and a religious function. The removal from city or the
destruction of the corps aimed at preventing the transmission of diseases but
they were also dictated by the fear of man towards death and by the will to
prevent the return of the dead among living people. Almost 25.000 years ago love was born. A lightning transcending and
overcoming sexual attraction was born between the two human sexes, which
start to feel part of a same organism. When one of the two parties dies, the
other one feels to have lost a part of itself. It does not accept it. It
remembers the lost part, it dreams of it, it imagines it in front of itself,
it makes it live again, it resuscitates it in its mind. Just after the birth of love, starts the attention to old people,
until that time considered only a burden. The hierarchic structures is
formed, focused on the knowledge of old people. Who survives to the loved
person tells to old people his sensations, memories, dreams, imagines of the
loved person they have lost. To feel the presence of the loved dead means to
feel the sensation that life continues after death. From this sensation the
idea of eternity was born. As man could only imagine eternity, he needed to conceive the eternal
subject that could represent it. From this evidence the idea of a subject
able to govern life and death was born. This entity should pre-exist to life
and live after death, that is it has to exist independently from the thinking
subject. A transcendent entity. An act of faith. Faith is an attitude which involve human will and intelligence and is
addressed to a person, and idea or a divine being. The divinity represents
the protection of what man would like to be and could become if, instead of
accepting the solution of a life after death, would engage himself with all
his strength against death, feeding himself from the feeling of fault towards
fathers, renouncing to the idea of a protecting entity from natural powers
and difficulties of life, replacing faith in the transcending entity with
faith in himself. But the personal idea of the transcending entity is not yet religion.
Religion comes when a certain number of subjects recognize themselves in
common practices and beliefs based on the relation of man with the divine.
Religions were born in cultures where was affirmed a strong differentiation
between human mind and natural environment, between subjective conscience and
objective fact, between spirit and matter. This differentiation is in
sedentary agricultural societies where the division of work implies that the
people carry out different tasks in the community. By the cultures of hunters,
each male member of community knows all necessary techniques to survive, but
in agricultural communities, where a higher cooperation is required, between
subjects having different tasks and skills, are necessary symbolic
communication methods more precise thus conventional , especially concerning
language and roles. In the history of human civilizations the religious phenomenon is
universal but not primordial. It was not born together with man but from a
particular state of development, when, after perceiving death, man wanted to
make love eternal with the idea of overcoming death in another life. At the basis of religious conceptions and behavior seems to be present
one or more superior beings which man perceives as belonging to a
transcendent world compared to the human one. Towards these superior beings
man feels dependent and at the same time wish to have a relation with them. The human intelligence, with its own capacity to process experiences
and external stimuli, may try to find a better solution to the simple
illusion of life after death. It doesn’t exist any revelation. Nor a freeing being. Everyone of us
may say «I am the one who is». The
mystical assumptions of all revelations are false. Who wrote the Veda has never seen nor heard Brahma, the
personification of the supreme Brahman, considered as creator of the universe
and member, together with Shiva and Vishnu, of Trimurti Indy, divine triad if
postvedic origin. Who wrote the Bible has never seen nor heard Jehovah, considered as
the creator of the universe and of man to his image and similarity. An
omniscient being would never dictate the first statements of the Genesis : «First God created the sky and the earth.
Now the Earth was shapeless and deserted and darkness covered the abyss and
the spirit of God fluttered upon water. God said: Be the light!. And there
was light.». What is true in this story? If it was true, all science
would be a huge lie, unreal. Who wrote the Gospels had never seen nor heard God but only a man,
that Christ who should change history if its teaching was not mystified. A
suggestive definition of faith in the New Testament considers it «certainty
of things we hope and demonstration of the thing we do not see». In this
passage the word «faith» translates the Greek term pístis, that indicates the
act of giving its own faith. According to this concept has faith who believes
and hopes in something which does not exist. It is the highest illusion and
mortification. Except for every dialectic, having such a faith means
believing in death rather than in life. According to Agostino, men can free themselves from the power of sin
only receiving the mystery of the Church. The elects of God, then, reach
finally the salvation not for their merits or their good actions but for the
winning divine grace. This means considering ourselves as puppets, the
movements of who moves the threads. It is the negation of intelligence. The fifth gospel says: «The
disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us, what will be our end?" Jesus
said, "You have thus found the principle, the end will be where is the
principle. Blissful the one who starts from the principle: because he will
know the end and he will not experience death." Jesus said, "If a
blind leads a blind, both will fall in a hole.” Jesus said: “ Any one who has
something in hand will receive more, and anyone who has nothing will be taken
also the little he has” . Jesus said: “ If someone asks you “ where do you
come from?”, tell him “ We come from light, from the place where the light
has appeared by itself, and it has remained, and it has appeared in their
image. Its disciples asked him: “When will the reign come?” “It will not come
searching it. You will not say “Look at it, it’s here!” But , the reign of
the Father is on earth and nobody sees it». These phrases represent a more human dimension, more real. This is
why, perhaps, they were not canonized. Who wrote the Koran has never seen nor heard any angel. He has only
studied the Bible texts calling the Jewish God and Christian God with the
name of his father Abd Allah (a ashimit of the tribe of Quraysh, which
dominated the Mecca, being a consistent part of it and keepers of Kaaba),
reaffirming the origins of universe and human species reported in those
ancient texts and that lately proved to be absolutely false. Emulating Jesus, Maometto wanted to be king and priest, with the
difference that while disciples of Christ preached with a civil ancient
(centuries) right in Arabic countries there were no other rules besides the
ones he wrote. It is the history of peoples and not the power of the idea
that has allowed to affirm the Islamic theocracy. It is unconsidered that an
economic systems based on shariah would have needed a redistribution of
wealth and soil in order to create a more right and equal society. Anyhow, any omniscient being would dictate, on behalf of Allah, the
Pitiful, the Merciful, the XXXV Sura: «Allah
be praised! Creator of the skies and the earth, who made of messengers angels
endowed with two, three or four wings. He adds to creation what he wishes. In
reality, Allah is almighty, No one can detain what Allah gives to men with
pity and no one can give what He detains. He is the Highest, the Wise. O men,
remember the favor Allah has made you. Besides Him there is maybe a
creator who feeds you from sky and earth? He is the only God. How can you
leave it? And if you are treated as liar , you must know that the previous
messengers were treated like that. All comes from Allah. O men, the promise
of Allah is truth. Do not be deceived by the earthly life and the Deceiver do
not move you away from Allah. The Evil is your enemy and you have to treat it
as such. He invites his disciples to be close to the Flame. The unbelievers
will have a hard punishment while those who believe and do good actions will
be forgiven and will be well rewarded. What will be done of the one whose bad
action was sweetened so to make him consider it good? But Allah diverts and
leads who he wants. Thus do not grieve for them : Allah well knows what they
have done. Allah is the One who sends the winds: they move clouds we push
towards a dead place. Thus give life again to earth after it was dead. In the
same way, will come Resurrection! And who desires power must know that all
power is in Allah: the good word goes to Him and He praises the faithful
action. Those who instead weave bad actions, will be punished hardly. Their
weave is destined to failure. Allah has created you from earth and then from
a drop of sperm thus He has divided you in couples.». The primitive cultures haven’t conceived a religious doctrine or a
systems of notions in order to define the nature of a god but they have
conceived the spirit as a perception rather that an idea in which the
language is not made of concepts but of images. From this perception were
born the myths, based on dreams and fancy that express practically
unconscious psychological processes. The myths are a group of oral narration, free from coordinated
material elements in a ordered systems subject to rules, passed by generation
to generation, that offer an important representation of the universe, as
naive explanation of natural events. Each religion is formed due to the conceit of having discovered the
original principle, the utmost truth. And it is all false, The Eternity has
not a name. There are no messengers. There are no revelations. The mysticism
is only boasting of the closeness to God. Esotericism are just doctrines to name
others. Mysticism are subjective fictions or convictions. The miracle is just
a phenomenon not yet explained. There is no reincarnation. The only basic
principle is energy without space and time. Good and Evil aren’t subject nor
powers act against them but moral assessments of the effects of human
behaviors and of other natural agents processed by conscience. Fear is the ancestral root of our evolution process. From fear comes
hate. Thus our evolution process is accompanied by hate, prevalence spirit, affirmation
voluntary, ego. The object of hate is not the completely different, which may
be avoided, used, loved, in some cases also destructed if we see it as a
danger, without hating it. We have lived together with a collection of
minerals, vegetables and animals very different from us, that we accept and
use just thanks to their difference. If animals have been object of hate, it
is only as far as we have humanized them. For the paranoic ego of human being what awakens terror, reject and
intolerability is to be «similar but different», someone could be at our
place but it is not assimilable to our clan, tribe, nation, race, faith. The new world order must be based on freedom, justice, equality,
possibility of happiness of every human being. These must be principles
ordering the Earth. In order to conquest the balance. As everything exists and is always existed, also ourselves are
composed by pure energy without space and time. The elementary particles are
the agents producing gravity force and that have produced the first inflation
from which the universe was born. The banality of all religions is that they want to explain what has
not been proved yet, almost to delay as long as possible their demonstration.
In order to support this “not-proved” explanation every means is used:
miracles, sacrifices, physical and psychological violence. Miracles are such
until we discover their cause. They are only events which exploit ignorance.
No god exists, no freeing being. Every thing was obtained always and only with human blood. The
martyrdom for a religious faith is stupidity and desire to be the center of
attention. Any religious martyr has never given anything to another human
being. Cultural mystification is not only the assertion of divinity of Jesus
Christ and virginity of his mother but also the imposition of the word of a
man who has consider himself the only prophet. Religion gives preference to love for the divinity of love for nature.
Each religious faith has caused victims, has had its own murders, human
sacrifices. There is no Christ at all. There is no anti-Christ. Maieutics is
used to generate transcendent myths rather than to promote research for
truth. And stupid kill in order to affirm something they do not know with the
only aim to convince themselves and impose to others that it exists.
Hypocritical. All religions are false because they are constructed on false
axioms at first. From the division of spirits at the talk with the divinity. Unfortunately, the conscience of the divine overlaps to and absorbs
the moral conscience. The faith is eagerness for power claiming to explain
what is still unexplainable. We do not perceive any transcendent being but
only immanent pulsions. Freedom of faith means freedom to imagine and profess
what we want without trying to convince the others that we are right. We will say: «How critical is
him with everybody! Why doesn’t he turn to himself? I answer immediately. I
have done it, I have done that. And I have discovered that my ego is not the
only existing one, my Super-ego, my thought, my ideas, my fears, my labor, my
illusions. There is a system consisting in several organized parts in
different subsets, one of which is the human systems. And I belong to it too.
There is no need of any revelation to understand it. Nor of any faith in
eternity.» In the name of the human being, of intelligence, of life and love, I
speak to You, I speak to the peoples of every race, every age and every
religion, in order to invite to reflect on our existence and that of our
sons. I do not do it in the name of any family, any government, any law, any
economic interest, any absolute truth, any god. I do it because I feel it,
for what I believe and because I think you feel the same inside of you. All reality is perceptible. There are no non-perceptible realities.
There are no transcendent realities. Reality is only immanent. There is not
any non-knowable reality. There are only known and still unknown realities.
The ignored reality is only unknown. There is not any transcendent being. All
revelations are false. It is not true that is absolutely impossible to understand the essence
of pure energy without space and time. Certainly, to prove it, we do not tell
that the stone doesn’t know man but that man doesn’t know well the stone yet.
Nothing belongs to us forever. We have only the use of instruments to live
and develop ourselves. No one may sacrifice others but only himself. There is a paradoxical contradiction between the interdependence
relationship of the parts which compose ourselves and the reject of
interdependency between us. The union of the parts of a set wins the end
(dead) of every part because in the time the power of the union overcomes
that of the sum of all obstacles. Immortality is the result of the fight
against ignorance in order to conquest the necessary knowledge to make
unuseful the death. Of dead people remains only remembrance and the things
they have done during life. There isn’t any being out of existing reality.
What was before the start of reality is still in the reality and has become
existing reality. Before the start existed pure energy. The pure energy is composed by
indipendent particles without space and time and at the state of maximum
simplicity. The energy formed by independent particles was in unstable
balance. The balance of particles was due to their absolute independence. The
instability came from their potential charge. The potential charge has
divided one particle in interdependent parts. The power of the set of new
particles was superior to the power of the original particle and has provoked
an unbalance in the state of pure energy. First the being was without space and time. The being is power in
itself. The act is manifestation of the power of the being. The power depends
on the form of being. The aim of the act is a higher power. The act in itself
frees power. Each act provokes as reaction other acts. Also each reaction act
frees power. The act may be addressed to the outside or the inside the being.
The act addressed to the inside divides the being which carries it out. The
act addressed to the outside provokes a break-up or an aggregation. If the being is unique, and thus there is anything out of it, its
first act is certainly addressed to itself. The first act that the unique
being addresses to itself can only give origin to its own break-up, otherwise
there would not be manifestation of any power. From the break-up of the only
being take origin at least two parts. Even if every act frees power, the subsequent
acts increase the power of the set of all parts of being. This apparent
paradox can be explained with the fact that the act, that is the
manifestation of freed power, modifies the shape of the set. It is the new
shape of the set which increases its power, according to the following chain:
starting shape of the only being = minimum power; starting act ® before break-up = temporary shape = increase in
power; subsequent act ® new break-up = temporary shape = increase in power; final act ® last
break-up = final shape = maximum power. In this way, in the process of temporary phases, the act is means to
show power and increase it modifying the shape, while the highest power
becomes means of the subsequent act, until it reaches the maximum power,
corresponding to the final shape, when no other acts are needed to show
power. Unfortunately, this process may happen both in function of the
strengthening of the set and in function of the strengthening of the part
which carries out the act. So, the acts addressed outside may cause the decay
of the parts carrying out reaction acts, while acts addressed inside may only
strengthen acting people. In order to avoid that an average power, becoming instrument to
produce the act, provokes its own or someone else’s decay, we should have the
possibility to show power without carrying out the act or to carry out the
act without modifying its shape, so to leave unchanged the power. The first
solution is impossible, as it would have been impossible for the only being
to show power without carrying out the first act. Also the second solution is
impossible because until the set has not reached the maximum power, each act
will be means to show power and every power will be means to produce the act.
The only solution seems to be to address the act towards its actor., so to
provoke a strengthening of its own, without any decay of itself or others. The power of the set of all parts is always superior to the sum of the
powers of each of its parts and to the power of the only original being. Thus
the maximum power takes place with the set of the maximum number of parts and
not with the fusion of different parts. To the maximum power of the set of
all parts corresponds the maximum power of each part respect to the whole
set. If since the first act have originated two parts having the same power,
it is identical also the maximum power of each part of a set. Each part tends to its own maximum power respect to the set until it
hasn’t reached it. Each part then carries out the necessary acts to reach its
maximum power compared to the set. In this way the power difference is
reduced for each part compared to the set of all parts and of each part
compared to every other and compared to the set of all other parts , until
every part has reached an identical maximum power, corresponding to the
maximum power of the set of all parts. Before the beginning it was only energy. There is power without
strength. Then, the energy breaks up into different parts. It is the first
act. Breaking up, the different parts of energy produce waves. Waves form the
space. In the space the matter is formed. The matter changes. The change of
matter provokes the break-up and the subsequent re-composition of particles
of energy. It is the evolution process. With the evolution, the particles get higher power, which show itself
with further acts. If there is manifestation of power, that is action, the
energy undergoes a decay thus tends to develop itself. If the energy is so
powerful to be able to inhibit every act to manifest power outside, there is
a heap of power. The heap of power of an organism does not produce any
benefit compared to the whole. Instead, if the heap of power is addressed
towards the space, leaving out of consideration the energy which produces it,
there is a modification of waves produced by energy, thus a modification of
the effect without modifying its original cause. The perception is the act though which we take conscience of reality
through a sensation. It is a psychic function, which processes what senses –
that is external and external receptors – transmit to conscience. The
character of the sensation comes from the way is perceived, that is the
process starting with the transmission of data by the senses to recent memory
through the cerebellum and by their comparison with those in the three levels
of memory: recent, remote and genetic. The genetic memory is the base of the cerebral system where the
hereditary traits are recorded. It characterizes the evolution of a certain
species. It is located in the brain and contains the data which provokes
stimuli and instincts. The remote memory is a superstructure of the cerebral
basis which contains the formerly processed data. It is located in the two
lobes, under the cortex, and it is the most complex and important part of the
cerebral capacity. In the remote memory are recorded the schemes of experimented
behaviors and are developed the deductive strategies and the inductive
inputs. The deductive strategies analyze logically what is results from its
own processing system. The inductive inputs imagine – perceive – what might
be: we could say that they create reality. The recent memory stays in the cerebral cortex and contains the
perceived data from the sensor organs and also the decisions transmitted after
the process of the data themselves. The perception derives not from a complex
of sensations produced by several stimuli but from facts, objects and shapes.
Our psychic activity, due to the nature and the structure of sensorial
organs, mainly registers effects, overlapping and dominating the causes which
have produced them. This depends also on the limited speed of transmission of data thus on
the necessity to use the time in a certain way. From perception you rapidly
pass to reaction, instead of adapting itself to look for causes responsible
for the way we perceive and to logically foreseen the effects of solutions
with which we react. Consequently, the perception of what is really fades
away together with its explanation, while it is affirmed the perception of
what appears, what is seen and heard. The way of perception is thus more closely linked to the relationship
between present and past rather than to that between present and future. In
this way, the future is effect of stimuli – reactions- already adopted and
considered efficient by experience and not by the removal of present causes,
just because it would need too long time to adopt the strategy of their
research and analysis. In order to modify this state, this process, it would be necessary to
give a longer time for processing but, to have longer time, it is necessary
to have more power and to have more power is necessary to inhibit at least
partially the stimulus through which the power manifest itself through the
act. How can we inhibit such a stimulus? Only with the awareness that we
can allow that, otherwise the effect would be a kind of repression which
would then tend to explode. The awareness to be able to allow the partial
inhibition of a stimulus derives from the knowledge of the cause of it. Let’s consider the stimulus of fear. It originates from genetic memory
and its cause is uncertainty dictated by the information recorded in the
remote memory and in the recent memory. Modifying the cause, overcoming
uncertainty, the stimulus is gradually modified, until it is inhibited in the
genetic memory and reconsidered in the recent memory, that records, in its
turn, a different deduction and communicates it to the remote memory, in a
constant circular process from which a new path take origin. Although, if the
uncertainty is overcome due to higher power, the cause results definitely
modified, while if it is overcome through the action of other subjects, the
cause is generally destined to re-present itself when this action – unless
the action itself is nor repeated for the necessary time to “reaccustom” the
process it influences. The organism always suffers from influencing actions coming from
outside but the effects of such a result are different also compared to the
aim of the subject carrying them out and to the duration of the actions
themselves. As a consequence, the removal of the original cause of a process
is carried out in a certain way is effect of the increase in power and in a
different way if it is effect of external actions. In a certain way, this removal process takes place in a
non-proportional way to the strength is used on the cause. At equal
importance and acceleration conditions, we feel stronger the action on
ourselves compared to that suffered from outside. As a consequence, in order to overcome the valence of endogenous
forces of another organism is necessary a strength – a power manifestation –
more important and accelerated than the one generally expressed towards
itself by the organism from which we want to remove the cause. In any case,
to provoke a radical change of the process we have to know the original
cause, although the actions result only tries almost irrelevant. Once perceived and recognized the cause why a complex organism
perceives in a certain way, we have to make the effort to emulate the
features, imagining - or realizing – the same sensations that such organism
feel. In practice, we have to double the process we want to modify, in order
to feel the same stimuli, paying much attention to distinguish his proper
natural sensations from the intuitions deriving from wearing someone else’s
cloths. Although having an
experimental character and not pathological, there is always a difference
between being another and looking like him, also because our own organism is
compelled to manage two different states in the same time. This double
management composes the so called fourth level of perception. The first level
is reached with the starting perception of the evident. The second with its
memorization. The third with the sensation is felt. The set of the three
levels determines the way of perception. Although it has experimental character and not pathological, there is
always a difference between being another and looking like him, also because
the organism is compelled to manage two different situations at he same time.
This double management represents the so called fourth level of perception.
The first level is reached with the starting perception of evidence. The
second with its memorization. The third with the felt sensation. The set of
the three levels determine the way of perception. The fourth level – obtained
with the repetition – is in short a comparison between our own and another
person’s way of perception. It is a difficult exercise. Let’s suppose that a person denies the
evident. What can be the origin and the cause of it? What has happened in a
hypothetical initial moment? And what has happened before the denial?
Answering to the second question – what is the cause – is quite easy, if you
know the state of the subject at present time. But the same cause of denial
is effect of an original cause, and it is that of the origin of denial. What can we do? We have to trace back to the data regarding that
subject and memorized in his remote memory, repeat them as the same data
would refer to himself and not to another subject, thus deduce the original
cause and realize the way to modify it, wondering: «How would I do?» We will discover that the cause is a mistake, a false thing, bad and
unjust: a fact, a thought, or a belief. Anything it is, it is rooted, it has
developed effects and processes which, although the trials to modify them,
they are not under self-control of those experiencing them. Once it is identified the other person’s original cause, we have to
compare with our own similar original causes, to personal similar mistakes
that have provoked a determinate way of perception, isolating those which had
been modified. We remember then what we did to modify our own way of
perception and we will use the same way to remove the original cause of the
reiterated organism. At that point, if I were the other, I would be already different. But
I am not the other one, thus we have to find the way to communicate him the
way and to make him adopt it. To do so, we can use the analogical method or
the dissociated method. Let’s suppose that an subject denies the evidence
because he doesn’t want to take responsibility and compare himself with
another subject and that this cause originates from the fact the first reason
why the relationship with the other is born, was declared differently from
the real one and he is sure the other subject has believed to the given
version. And let’s suppose that if I had done something similar, I would try
to remove that original fact admitting and declaring the process of effects
risen from that fact, stating finally that the admission does not imply that
I still have that original reason. With the analogical method we communicate the messages which have as
object similar processes to the one to adopt in order to overcome the
negation of evidence. An analogical message could be the following one. A man
is thirsty and sees the sun reflected by the water. The man has especially
thirst. Anyhow, to a friend handling him a perfectly clean glass, says that
he wants to try to fill it up in order to see the reflection of the sun in
the glass. Who gives the glass insists to see the sun reflected in the water
of the glass. At a certain time the man who’s thirsty drinks and the other asks
him how he can do now that the glass is empty to see the sun reflection. The
man who has drank will thus say that the glass was not so clean and the water
had become cloudy. The other will react asking why if the glass was dirty and
the water cloudy, that same water was drunk. Then the man who has drunk fills
up the glass again and try to show that now the water is clean because the
formerly collected water has cleaned the glass. Although, he will not succeed
in explaining because he has drunk the cloudy water, unless he confesses that
he especially was thirsty and he admits that the glass was clean from the
start, pointing out that now he is not thirsty any more thus he wants just to
see the sun reflected in the glass. With the dissociated method we communicate messages that have nothing
to do with the necessary process to overcome the evidence denial, underlying
the increase in power of the subject in order to induce him to adopt
spontaneously that process. A dissociated message could be the following one.
A man is thirsty and asks for a glass of water to another person. The other
give it to him and asks: «What do you
think I would have done if you asked me to drink from this glass for another
person and then I would have discovered that you were thirsty?». The
thirsty man answers: «You would have
told me I am hypocritical and false.». And the other adds: «No, I would have wondered why you did not
tell me to be thirsty and I would have maybe thought the water disgusted you
so to deny to yourself that you would drink it. I know the reason why could
be completely different, but as I know it, I am compelled to give me a
possible explanation. Unless you pretend I ask you why you did not tell me
the truth, with the risk to hear a version which would be false. Between the
risk to hear a false thing and to think if it was it for real, or to give an
explanation even if I did not asked for it, I have preferred the second
choice. So, at least, I have certainly avoided the disturb to tell another
lie». The match between wealth, brotherhood and democracy was rightly
compared to the squaring of the circle. In fact, not only it doesn’t exist a
context in which economic success, social state and popular sovereignty are
together. Unfortunately, it doesn’t exist neither the theoretical solution to
realize it. The reason of this lack is not due to a sort of impossible
solution, but rather to a precise limit: the sectionalism. The solution is no
more inside us. The solution is in the set. The economist who knows each feature of production relationships has
not the time to think of moral and political processes. The philosopher
follows a logical process that deduces partial information and uncompleted
information compared to production relationships and participation relationships.
The politician, in his turn, also when he knows the economical processes and
feels the moral side of what he thinks is right, can only adjust his action
to the research of consent, just because this is one of the peculiar features
of democracy. Nowadays, the only entity able to include in itself enough knowledge
to modify processes is the scientific-technologic complex as a whole, whose
target is however its own development rather then the matching of richness,
solidarity and democracy within itself. And we can not even think that the
solution could be pointed out by an artificial intelligence to be provided
with the information and criteria necessary to make deductions. In fact, it
would be itself the result of that same scientific-technologic complex, that
would affect its perceptions and therefore deductions according to its own
criteria. The solution lays in the whole; all together. Together you can. However, this whole must be able to emulate those knowing the
production processes, it has to know what is right, being aware that
everyone’s participation is necessary to make, to create what’s right. And
what is emulated must be an organized part of the whole, without appearing as
a subject, so as to avoid being regarded as a myth and, therefore, being basically
admired, envied and imitated. Not only has the example to be repeatable. It
must also feature enough potentials to appropriate the knowledge of the
prevailing parts and to carry out actions proving to be effective on the
whole. Just like energy produces waves without being a wave itself, the
emulated thing must be able to produce effects without being mixed up with
the effects produced. Nowadays, the scientific-technologic complex enables an individual to
act in a certain way on his/her own, without appearing and without
participants. The incident actions may regard procreation, production,
information and other still relatively unknown sciences, by affecting
respectively the genetic mechanisms, the monetary system, the communication
process, the brain hyper-energies. Nevertheless, it could do so only for
creating unbalance and not for restoring balance too. This is the current state of affairs, the reality. An individual alone
could only prove his/her power, without developing that of other people.
Perhaps, the reaction towards one showing his/her own power could modify the
perception way, thus leading to the creation of the means required for such
development. However, we should not forget the risk of a different reaction,
that may annihilate even those souls aiming already at an overall improvement
of the whole. Furthermore, some would react by aggressively showing their power,
without worrying about the possible impact of such actions on the whole.
Therefore, acting alone is possible but not recommended. We should resort to
others to do things, by sharing the emulative references among a considerable
number of individuals, so that the observer understands the new processes
without thinking that he/she won’t be able to adopt them. By using effective
examples by and encouraging the participants to think and be involved, we can
prove that one can be and should be the way he/she wants, not any different. No armed revolt, civil disobedience, popular election, secession or
scission, unification or merger, federation or confederation will ever equal
the emulation power of those proving to be able to implement - not only in
the internal relationships – an actual social refunding, intended as
contextual change in the relations and behaviors. Predicting the future consists in the logical deduction originating
from the actual reality – not from the historical one – of the facts we know.
The future will be the way we all can rationally imagine it. Truly said that
it is always indeterminate, as it always reveals itself in a different way
than we expected and we tried to shape it; but it is also true that some
fundamental elements have always revealed themselves on a regular basis,
except for those cases in which relations and rules among the system’s parts
were not willing or could not adapt to the increase in the complexity level. In such cases, when the relations among the parts did not adapt to the
complexity level, the system, basing on the old rules, was not able to keep
all its parts together, the relations among the latter rapidly changed, by
undergoing some sort of acceleration. These very changes led to the
introduction of new rules and, therefore, to the creation of new relations
among the parts. In those cases, the behavior of some parts changed, in spite
of the existing relations. What does behavior consist in? What is it caused
by? The behavior is the action and its cause is the relation between the
individual’s power level and the maximum reachable power. Until a part is
endowed with a power level that does not coincide with its maximum power, it
makes endogenous actions designed to modify its structure, regardless from
the exogenous links. Now, we find ourselves in such a complex situation that
the rules as well as the relations among the parts need to be changed,
renewed. The assumption according to which all human beings can be ensured
need freedom since several years – this not having been achieved yet – proves
that the system’s rules are no longer fit for its development level and,
therefore, for its complexity level. Thus, it is obvious, historically
logical, repetitive and likely that some parts avoid the rules, by adopting
behaviors that are in contrast with such rules; the latter will then evolve
as a consequence of such atypical behaviors. Let’s go back to the future. We could have an increase in richness,
solidarity and democracy, both as a whole or just for one part of humanity,
but we are not going to have these conditions enjoyed by all the parts. On
the contrary, the reality proves that, over the last one hundred years, the
number of poor, emarginated and powerless people has increased. And this
trend will not change until we keep assuming that at least one, or maybe two,
of these conditions can be turned into reality, and not the three of them
together. The problem is approached in a twisted, unreal way. But things are
actually different. The problem does not lay in the fact that these three
conditions can not be combined with one another, but rather in the fact that
none of these conditions is and will ever be referred to a group if they are
not achieved all three together. Without richness, neither solidarity nor
democracy exist. Without solidarity, neither richness nor democracy exist.
Without democracy, neither richness nor solidarity exist. Just like you can
not have something true, beautiful and right if you don’t have these three
conditions all together. Therefore, the problem can not be solved because … this is not the
problem. And you can not find any solution for a non-existing problem. The
real problem is how to achieve the three conditions all together. And the key
is the will to achieve them together. To do so, we must understand that the
maximum individual development is obtained within the maximum overall
development. But how should we let people understand that? Through what
means? Basing on what strategy? Means, in terms of knowledge and action ability, are available and
consist in the scientific-technological complex proper. In order to arrange
them in view of the target we are aiming at (i.e.: changing the perception
way), a proto-strategy can be adopted, to be regarded as emulation of the
original unique individual: energy scission first, creation of waves and
space, creation and transformation of matter, with the following
re-composition of energy, of all the energy, in a far more complex state. In
this way, man is split and everything is newly created. Here we are, I have come to the end of my ideas. I have nothing to add
at the moment. Now, what I need is you. Everyone is necessary. Everyone’s
culture, work, thought and will are necessary. What I think may even be
wrong. Certainly, while reflecting on ones’ selves, over six billion human
beings could find truer, better and even righter truths. In any case, stop
letting your freedom and your own dignity depend on other people. The
solutions against fear do not lay in war, drug, hatred, revenge, chips,
speeches that are pre-formulated by some unknown people, who perhaps trigger
evil just to preserve and increase their power on you. Thank you. October, 16th 2001. Rodolfo
Marusi Guareschi |