Embedded Files
I have the impression that the worst thing about so-called “sacrifice” is that it is in vain. I am very aware that what I am saying can be considered heresy but that doesn’t keep it from being true.
The first thing I’ve been able to glimpse is that sacrifice as a concept and implementation has covered our human history with a dark, fearful and cruel shadow. Neither human, animal, nor psychological sacrifices have been able to make sacrifice interesting and unitive. In the best of cases sacrifice has been glorified to hide the stupidity of wars and other confrontations where the absurdity of death uses sacrifice as a palliative.
“The law of increasing entropy is the only known asymmetric law of classical physics, which is why it is considered the basis of irreversibility. In other words, the essence of physical time is that the world must inevitably keep getting ‘worse’: more primitive, more chaotic, more uniform. And consequently, our permanence in this world must be recognized as ... absolutely unnatural and contrary to the laws!"
This paragraph is from the book Nonlinear Future by Russian psychologist and sociologist Akop Nazaretyan (1948-2019), translated from Russian into Spanish by Hugo Novotny.
The topic of resistance is more complex than it seems. Resistance is generally considered a kind of difficulty in maintaining a positive attitude when facing a challenge or something similar. “One resists…”
Indeed, we resist many things, and often this has a lot to do with what is called “inertia,” which is a physical law.
“Inertia is the property of matter that causes a body to resist changes in its state of motion or rest. That is, an object at rest tends to remain at rest, and one in motion tends to continue moving in a straight line, unless an external force acts upon it.”[1]
“Newton’s First Law: Also known as the Law of Inertia, this is the fundamental physical principle that describes this phenomenon.
In 1992, Silo made the following comment: “It is difficult to grasp the nature of a process. Processes are phenomena that unfold from within; they cannot be understood from the outside. History is the process of human beliefs manifesting as behaviors and transformations in the world. We are in a moment of historic change—a shift in beliefs—and we will continue to say that what we see is incredible. What is truly incredible is failing to realize the depth of the change we are living through.”
I have always liked this statement because it clearly explains at least a couple of things: one regarding processes, and the other regarding beliefs. I am deeply interested in understanding processes—and, more specifically, the process of our human history.
Persuasion has a bad reputation, but that’s not her fault. In reality it’s nobody’s fault, and the negative or positive meanings that some words awaken in us have little to do with the words themselves. They have to do instead with the meanings that have been built, sometimes over centuries, for certain words. Unfortunately or fortunately, Persuasion has a cousin named Manipulation who looks a lot like her, but in reality they are very distant relatives whose similarity is only apparent.
Probably the most significant thing about persuasion is that the person using it isn’t trying to get anything out of using it. In other words, persuasion isn’t used for one’s own benefit.
Reflections on “The Path”
At the end of the book Silo's Message, there is a section called "The Path" in which we find very short phrases suggesting a mental direction. Among these phrases are three that begin the same way, with the words "Do not imagine...":
"Do not imagine that you are alone in your village, in your city, on the Earth, and among the infinite worlds.
Do not imagine that you are enchained to this time and this space.
Do not imagine that upon your death, loneliness will become eternal.”
The process opposed to evolution is involution. One characteristic of involution is a low level approach to dealing with everything. Right now, institutions, politics, economics and even spiritual currents work with what is minimally accepted, also known as the lowest common denominator. The great problem is that in this situation, we are not progressing, we are not evolving; instead, we remain stuck in the same groove culturally, politically, economically and spiritually. We should not be surprised if our best elected or potential government officials reflect precisely this very low level that we have come to accept and, in some cases, to defend.
From time to time, I find myself thinking about concepts that are common but seldom used. One of them is what we call "willingness." Interestingly, the dictionary definition and etymology of the word explain its origins quite well, as well as the fact that it is something innate. They don't quite consider the concept as an attribute that doesn't exist but can be acquired. In other words, disposition, if you don't have it, can be acquired. That is, it is an attribute or quality that can be "cultivated" and that has the potential to transform our responses to events and, in general, to the so-called reality we experience every day.
“Let us save man from vengeance, preparing the way for the new humanity that is approaching.”
This sentence has been forever engraved in my memory since I first read it, more than fifty years ago. I still remember it word for word, and it is still one of those themes for reflection that never leave me.
The impression it made on me is still working on me today, because I could not precisely comprehend what it was saying, and even today I don’t understand it.
Let me see if I can explain...
In January 1969, Silo gave a short talk in Quintero, a small coastal town in Chile. These were his words at the beginning of the talk: “Learn well what I am going to tell you: there are no good human beings or bad human beings. Where there is no freedom, there is neither good nor evil; everything happens despite human beings. Understand that you are not free at the moment of your birth, nor when you love, nor at the moment of your death.”
For me, when I came across those words a year later in a small book entitled Silo and Liberation, it was a great discovery.
“THE SPIRIT IS THE NEW PRINCIPLE IN THE HUMAN BEING”. SILO
“According to the life we live:
If it is centrifugal, it will have a basic structure without development.
If it is centripetal, the spirit will evolve without limits and you will obtain what you want.”
The concept of “spirituality” is in general difficult to define. It seems that it is so ample and sometimes so personal that it complicates the effort in trying to define it.
The conversation that got me thinking about this was one of those typical conversations that focus on moral errors and indiscretions as a product of what is termed "human nature." People often talk about how little can be expected from our selfish, cruel, malicious human nature. And the truth is that from that perspective it's quite reasonable to think that this human nature is nothing more than our animal nature. In view of our long history of wars, thievery, slavery, murder, and other atrocities, it's difficult to see beyond all these tragedies, especially when many of them have happened directly because some human beings were intentionally causing suffering to others.
In Valparaiso there was a meeting of "right-thinking" people who saw themselves as being winners, and who therefore clashed with Silo's proclamation, which read: "My teaching is not for the victorious, but for those who carry failure in their hearts."
Then someone asked (in a friendly tone) for an explanation of the meaning of the proclamation.
Silo replied that he would speak about the spirit and oppression.
"There was once a very powerful man who had a large number of sheep. In order to prevent their escape, he built a fence. Some, however, broke out of their prison and managed to escape. To prevent this, the powerful man brought dogs who watched night and day.
In 1970 a small booklet circulated with the basic teachings of a man called “Silo”. A man in his thirties from Argentina who just had a public gathering on the border between Argentina and Chile, very close to a tiny village called “Punta de Vacas”. His talk was titled “The Healing of Suffering” and it was an extraordinary addressing of topics nobody was talking about in the 60’s.
In the booklet mentioned before there were some points worth talking about today because, in my humble opinion, they are revolutionary. Yes, revolutionary in SPIRITUAL terms.
To believe is very different than to have faith. To have a system of beliefs is comfortable as long as those beliefs are not ever questioned. The moment the beliefs are confronted or questioned, we abandon all logic and in some instances we may feel personally attacked.
Probably this explain why in terms of politics and religion, the more we question others, the more they defend and justify their position. It becomes a silly contest on how to defend the indefensible.
There is no such thing as "forever", but it is one of the most common illusions that make us suffer.
There is no pain or joy that is forever.
Understanding this, life acquire a new meaning.
Everything will eventually pass.
To work internally is to acquire permanence in the capacity to change.
Permanence viewed in this way is a lot more interesting than "forever".
Constant change when embraced, give us reality and liberation from the tyranny of the illusory "forever"
If happiness has not arrived despite the efforts made to convince us that it depends largely on the possession of material objects, I'm sure no one feels that way. In other words, we all get offended if someone tells us we are "materialists." But if material things are destroyed by accident or intentionally, we become depressed, violent, we complain ,we get angry, etc. And it's no wonder. When our entire lives are oriented toward and dependent on material progress, it's quite tragic to experience that "loss," and at the same time, it's a source of reflection on why it affects us so much.
The truth is, we don't need to be offended or defend ourselves because we are essentially matter and spirit.
When I first heard the concept of self-censorship, I was deeply struck by the fact that I had never heard it from anyone before. The first time was through Silo in 2006, and the context was a conversation about how the Message expands in an attack against censorship and self-censorship, and that attack against self-censorship is the development of a willingness to abandon this system and create a different vision of how things are and how one should act toward them. At that time, it was just a word, and some years later, it's much more than that and has a deeper and more expansive meaning. I imagine the word has been used before, and Silo himself probably used it before, but the important point is that my recognition began that day.
The idea of "working internally" is not a new one. In different forms and in different times it's been somehow constantly present in our world.
The starting point is to work with what we have and this is probably a new proposal. It is commonly accepted in societies that we work trying to "obtain" something within ourselves. We want to "become" someone better or smarter or more spiritual, etc.
The simple idea of "obtaining" goes contrary to this process.
We can at best transform what we already have.
To work to "become" is a waste of energy.
Who really wants to listen to someone else's experience? Practically no one.
In general we can't wait to talk about our own experience and hardly listen to what the other is saying.
And we finished talking and the other person is not even listening, in the same way we don't listen.
It is a peculiar exercise on monologues.
Not often it happens that we can actually exchange experiences.
Not often and it only happens if we are very open to really listen.
The theme of violence and vengeance is a fairly heavy one, but at the same time it creates space for me to ask myself, “How do I get out of this mess?” No matter how much I’d like to offer the other cheek, I am not completely convinced of the effectiveness or enduring validity of that approach. And after ending up without cheeks from offering them so often, how can I really overcome those forces that keep being generated within me?
Going deeper, I have to recognize that sometimes my worst enemy is inside me. If I am my worst enemy, offering my cheeks won’t help me much.
When the institutions that are a society’s pillars are not perceived as such, that is the beginning of that society’s disintegration. Science is no longer credible, education is doubtful, religion is uninspiring, justice is no longer blind, politicians no longer represent any truth.
Trust is a key ingredient in a correctly functioning society. Generally trust is lost when the keepers of the trust fail in their actions. Normally trust is never recuperated when it breaks down. Doubt and mistrust poison everything they touch, and unfortunately the antidote has not yet been found for this enormous problem.
Guilt is a topic that has always caught my attention. Probably because it has been part of my life since my childhood. Born in a Catholic society and educated in a Catholic school, I had no choice but to learn to feel guilty starting in “tender infancy,” as they used to say…
It's good to have a direct experience of this phenomenon. I wouldn't wish it on anyone, not even on myself, but at least I'm talking about something that I have experienced and have "suffered" for a long time. This has made me think a lot about it - about where it came from, how it developed, and how it's managed to permeate societies for millennia.
I am interested in art. Yes. I'm interested in art, but from a perspective or point of view that can be summarized as follows:
"Art as a means of human expression and social development."
I'm not interested in defining "Art."
I am certainly not interested in anything remotely connected with "artistic creativity" or with the "creative process" in art.
The fact that I'm not interested in those aspects doesn't make them any less important or worthwhile. They have their value and their meaning, but it would not be honest for me to say that I can embrace them.
When approached intellectually, the theme of unity - of /what is unitive - is vast, and it's much easier to just experience it. But how can I experience an internal unity that sometimes seems so elusive?
I can try to define certain aspects of unity that allow us to experience it.
What we perceive as unity has characteristics that give us a feeling of tranquility, order, peace, oneness, harmony, a whole, originality (sometimes), etc. At the same time, unity has another aspect that has to do with our relationship with our social environment. Those feelings can’t exist separated from our interaction with the world.
In 1998 I wrote a fairly autobiographical novel that was undoubtedly boring for almost the entire public, since my greatest interest at that time was not in writing, but in trying to better understand what had happened to me in my life. I think I managed that in a way, because I did obtain a different perspective on the events of my life, and that is always good.
One of the chapters in that book was titled "Money is Everything" and when I re-read that chapter, I really did not see why I gave it that name, since I only suggested the concept of money and did not make it explicit. And we know how suggestions work… mostly pretty poorly.
Looking out over the garden one spring morning a few days ago, I suddenly had the impression that everything I was seeing was perfectly organized. Despite the enormous diversity of plants, flowers, shrubs, trees, etc., everything was growing and multiplying in a beautiful, harmonious, inspiring order.
So I had to ask myself whether what I was seeing was in itself perfectly organized, as it appeared to me, or whether it was my consciousness that was organizing everything that way. In other words, was all that harmonious and inspiring order part of the garden’s very nature, or was I simply perceiving it that way?
There are people who think, or actually don't think but believe, that wars are inevitable. In fact, if those dear people did think, they would come to the inevitable conclusion that wars are not only avoidable, they are also harmful and unnecessary for the progress of humanity. I say that they believe because it is actually a belief without a logical basis, despite all the efforts that are made to justify it with apparently logical arguments. And these arguments have gone so far as to propose that the best way to resolve conflicts between young people is to give each of them boxing gloves and have them fight until one of them survives all the blows. In other words, the unfortunate natural law of domination by force or also called “Law of survival of the fittest” - more on this, in the future…
At my age, it is rare to make new friends. Most of my friendships are ones that have been established over time, growing out of innumerable shared experiences, similar situations, interests that more or less converge, etc.
None of that was true with Peco. I met her through a group that Rafael Edwards formed in response to the pandemic in 2020, a group he regularly participated in because of the studies we were doing and the affinity that existed among all the participants. Peco joined shortly after the group formed and for inexplicable reasons, I felt an immediate affinity with her. I already knew her by name from decades before, since at the beginning of the seventies, her brother Tomas and I were close friends and cronies.
The night I read my friend Karen's essay titled “The Rupture,” or “The Breach,” I couldn’t sleep from the impact it made on me. Her words plunged me into a moment of total recognition and inspiration, and I had a deep desire to project this comprehension into my present and my future.
Since then I have felt it very important to understand this experience. At that moment I could only write a very heartfelt poem, but I also realized that what the experience gave me was much more than that. Over time, comprehensions and searches shared with others regarding the theme began to take shape - at least in me - giving me a suspicion that this profound rupture is inciting a response that will become the binding element of an identity that will make us truly part of a whole, of a human race, going beyond the classical definitions.
When we say that in general we do not choose, it is quite a bold statement and not accepted by society. We have been taught that choosing is what we do. Society tells us that we have options and it is true. We "choose" according to our compulsions or, in other words, our compulsions choose for us. Sometimes, after repeated failures, we can intuitively grasp these compulsions at work within us and have the realization that there really are no options but to follow them, or not to follow them... This is where our first choice might be made: not to follow my compulsions.
It can be argued ad infinitum that everything is true or that nothing is true, and that to “predict” essentially means just what its Latin roots - prae (before) and dicere (to say) - suggest: to say something will happen before it happens, but without any guarantee that it will happen. Even so, it is almost impossible to stop predicting based almost entirely on the fact that something has happened before and is continuing to happen. This is how prediction models keep being built, and how we keep adjusting our predictions about the climate and everything else we know to be cyclical, which curiously ends up being EVERYTHING.
Even though I would like it not to be, the issue of social justice is a very personal one. To begin with, the concept of justice is a moral concept and this is inescapable. We can not talk about justice without reference to the moral perspective that gives value as such. I think it is something that concerns all individuals of this planet independent of where they are located on the political spectrum, and independent of their conditions of origin.
To follow, the concept of justice has a deeper meaning when we analyze the conditions that any individual is born. Without awarding any attributes, we can comfortably say that every human being is born into a situation that is given. No one chooses to be born.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse