Manuel is married to Ruth, understanding and intelligent, they have a couple of adolescent children and everybody live of its dentist profession.

        A common family.

        Everyday chat for a long time with Ruth on its interior adventures with Jesus.

        What is there with you, Manuel? I have been noticing that sometimes you are a little quiet.

        I have been thinking a lot of Jesus and of what he said and I am a little confused. It seems that I am in a standoff. I don't know if I try to do what he said or if I leave everything as it is.

        To continue like this it is what you ought not to stay. You need to make a decision. A thing or the other.

        To forget what I learned leaving everything to continue in the same gives me the impression of being losing something very important. On another side, I am very afraid of trying the experience. I don't know what it can happen to me. I have the impression that my world will suffer a great disturbance.

        What can happen, Manuel?

        A lot of things.

        What, for example?

        Well, I don't know exactly. They are so much the possibilities that I don't get myself to decide.

        We can analyze them, one by one, and see where we get.

        I will begin for the one that more it worries me.

        Which is?

        The sexuality. I am a man, there is an amount of things they seem to be exclusive of man or are revealed with more intensity in man. The activity, for example, it is said that man is active and woman is passive. Even in sexual act this appears, man introduces and woman receives. Man is aggressive and woman is receptive.

        If I really live a mystic experience and my feminine interior aspect melts to my masculine personality, what actually will happen?

        In fact, I don't know, but don't you find better to examine what it means to be a woman or to be a man, before any thing else?

        I find, yes. Why do we think that man is active and woman is passive?

        Would not they represent the roles we learned how to represent? Would you some time purchase a pink suit?

        No, for sure.

        Why?

        Well, Ruth, only a woman would use pink clothes.

        You didn't answer to the question.

        I would not feel well pink dressed and they would laugh at me.

        You still didn’t answer, Manuel, What does a color have there to do with sex?

        Well, somebody said that has to be like this and everybody accepted.

        In highest, a role by somebody established, is it not? Just a norm, a rule. That receptivity history and aggressiveness should be the same thing. Somebody has a long time ago it established that should be like this and everybody accepts. After all women that are true war tanks and extremely delicate, affective and receptive men do exist.

        It is true, but they take the risk to be seen as homosexuals.

        To be seen is a thing, to really be is another. What somebody thinks of him is not what he thinks of himself; what we think of ourselves it doesn't have to be what we necessarily really are.

        We drop like this in the old problem, who or what are we?

        The only thing that I am sure I am is I am a woman. It is easy to see, I am totally different from the men, my body is different and nothing else more. In the rest I totally see myself equal to any man, I have the same feelings, I think and I ratiocinate in the same way.

        Say that the woman is the fragile sex, she acts by the heart and that the man is the strong sex, he acts by the reason.

        Fragile in something? Just in physical aspect, in life's problems the woman demonstrates the same impetus, the same impulse. A well-prepared and trained woman athlete wins any man non-athlete and not prepared. It is a training matter. A pianist that studied for ten years will play better than a novice pianist will. The existence of different roles during thousands of years made the rest; it seems to demonstrate superiority of a sex on the other in some aspects. If, for example, since immemorial times the man had assumed the care with children soon after the birth and it went attributed to woman the function of fighting in war, certainly today she would have a stronger physicist than the man.

        That seems to be true, but it doesn't explain why the woman acts by the heart.

        For the same reason. The woman assumed the care for the children; the man assumed warrior's role. The care with children gets naturally to the understanding, the affection, the care with defenseless and fragile people. The relation to adults that want to get what somebody believes to possess naturally develops the ingenuity, the intelligence, the tactics, the organization and the efficiency.

        Won't the existence of different roles be a natural need responsible for the survival and for the dominance that man exercised over all the other animals?

        May be, but that doesn't mean that the things have to stay the same until the end of times. The fact that man have developed in high degree its warrior abilities and ruler took it to war and to dominate the own woman. A lot of women through history and mainly last years have been impelled to modify that situation, they believe not to be free and they want to free of masculine dominance and oppression.

        That is true, Ruth, but men are not also free, they are enslaved to their own need to be superior and rulers.

        You touched a significant point. All of us, men or women, we want to be free, free from some thing that some way restricts our actions. What will truly mean to be free? Is it possible to be totally free?

        We dropped in the problem of "being". We don't know exactly what is "to be" some thing, how can we think of "being" free? The maximum we can affirm or to want is "to act" freely. We act with freedom when nothing impedes our action. Even in this case there is not total freedom, our own prejudices impede ours supposedly free action and we even notice.

        I think, Manuel, that all living beings are completely free, until an ant is free to go where it wants and to do what wants and can, even if it doesn't know why it makes it.

        Do you think then that we are even free to kill our fellow creature?

        Yes, we are. Even if somebody tries to impede us, the commandments, the law, contrary interior pulses, we always have freedom to kill somebody. We are naturally capable to decide and to act. A hungry animal decides to kill and it kills to survive. The humans already acted by that reason but today they kill without knowing the reason. They established laws against killing its fellow creatures but they think to be very natural to kill at war.

        Did you say that they kill without knowing why?

        Actually we are not capable to know the reason we make certain things. Why do you eat? Because you are hungry or because it is time of eating? You can say that is for this or that reason, but certainty you will never have. What we know about ourselves it is very limited, we use words, ideas, thoughts, symbols without knowing what exactly are those things. Even if you say to have certainty you can never know what is really to have certainty.

        There are centuries it discusses the free-will, if the man is free to decide or if there are determined causes for its decisions. Free-will versus determinism old polemic.

        The same of angels’ sex. Just faiths, one believes in a thing, others believe in another. See well, Manuel, I believe that man is free by its own nature, but if you ask me to define what is "to believe" I would not know what to say.

        Well, to believe is to be sure, to think it is this way or that way.

        "It is" like this. Do you notice that saying "it is" you are sent to the old problem of "being"?

        Now, Ruth, you complicate things. We began with my sexuality problem and see where we get.

        We may return. Humanity's great part believes, for example, that woman's place is the sacred home, taking care of the children's education and of the house. Because it always went like this or because woman is naturally endowed for that purpose. Man's place it is at work, looking for resources for home maintenance. They claim that so-called woman’s liberation is cause of many problems that afflict the humanity. A small part believes that should not be like this. Woman should be entitled the same than men, to compete with him in equality of conditions. A polemic that won't have end. A true war.

        While this war is processed, million are died, nature is destroyed, crime and violence grows, the weakest are massacred....

        Would not it be better to dedicate a small effort to find a satisfactory solution?

        The solution already exists. The big and only responsible for that situation it is the own man, after all he is cause and victim of its actions, it is only to reform the man, to reformulate him.

        What do you understand as man? Only the man or the women also?

        Of course both, the two need to be renewed so that they learn how to live together in a healthy way.

        Do you believe this will be possible, Manuel?

        I believe so and I also believe that the solution is in the initial problem that I mentioned, the sexuality.

        It seems simple, then.

        It seems but it is not, or better, it is simple but nobody wants to accept. Myself is an example than I want to say. I have in my hands the possibility to reformulate me and I don't decide, I am full of fears and doubts.

        Explain better, I do not understand.

        I don't have the smallest doubt that being reformulated I will be a better person than I think I am now on all aspects.

        What really is that reformulation?

        It simply consists of an interior existence, which gives in an altered state of conscience, where the so-called interior masculine aspects and feminine are founded; they become one alone thing. All the positive feminine potentialities that went repressing from my conception they will start to become the total cast of my own potentialities.

        Give me an example to be clearer.

        You know me for a long time and you know, for example, that I have great difficulty of expressing and even of noticing what I feel. That difficulty exists because I was educated to be a man with a capital M and that man type was defined as a fort, different from the women that are weak, because they reveal naturally what they feel. Well, this is constituted in a formidable barrier whenever I am requested to express feelings. It is easy to end that I will become a better and healthier creature by getting to express naturally my feelings. It was taught me that to be man it is necessary to be strong, never weak as the women.

        Now, Manuel, how long do you already know that this is nonsense? To demonstrate feelings is not sign of weakness, very less feminine exclusiveness.

        Sure, but just to know is not good for anything. The thing remains just in the surface of the mind. It is necessary to go deeper, to arrive to the unconscious memory where they lodge the roots of all the problems. If the roots are not eliminated the problem it continues being just half-masked.

        I agree with you, but as well as the man has negative capacities the woman also have. What will happen with them, will they also be absorbed? Are natural things as, for example, the woman to be sexually attracted for the man, will also make the reformulated man to feel sexual attraction for the men?

        Unavoidably the negatives will also be absorbed, that the integration of those aspects by itself is insufficient, but it is necessary and fundamental. With relationship to the natural attraction between sexes, it won't suffer alteration any because this attraction is purely biological; it is not something acquired through education.

        What to do then?

        Give me an example of a negative feminine aspect for we speak in a more concrete way.

        A very common one: the women are gossips, they like to foment an intrigue.

        I agree, in spite of having also men tremendously gossips. What is that need really difficult to handle? Nothing else than a small disease. A type of sadism, amusement with others suffering. As a disease it may and it can be cured. May have been acquire or inherited of some ancestral one, but every disease necessarily has a cause, the cause is eliminated and the disease will disappear.

        Psychologists or psychiatrists can make that.

        It really can, but for the reformulated man it will be much easier and fast and it won't cost absolutely anything.

        I begin to think that you should try that interior experience and if it gives right with you, I think that can also try.

        So wise you...

        Am I not right?

        Sure, but there are other problems linked to the experience.

        Which for example?

        The main one is that I will continue living in an inadequate society. I will become a strange body with tendency to be expelled, in the same way that a strange body in the body tends to be expelled.

        Why do you call inadequate the society?

        It is enough to observe what is happening. Everything is destroyed to build useless things. Even certain time behind the man was unable to destroy the nature to the point it was not capable to quickly re-do. Today destruction reached a level that doesn't allow its recovery. To destroy nature means to destroy life, our life it depends on the nature; we will end for destroying ourselves.

        Wait a little. What do you understand for useless things? What do you tell me of the ecological movements? Don't they fight for nature preservation?

        Let us go by parts. Hear what you said: don't they fight...? There is the cause of the inevitable failure, the fight, the warrior's attitude, and the war. What does happen when two antagonists they combat everyday? To every day they improve their weapons to become stronger and to defeat the enemy. To every day the fight it will turn more intense and it will be prolonged indefinitely. Consequently more nature destruction. Just think of the environmentalists' side. More and more they will need ships, vehicles, people's recruitment, promotion of ideas, studies, communication means, money and they will contribute indirectly to more destruction of the nature.

        I do agree with you, but what can they do except fighting for what they believe right?

        This is just one of the aspects than I called inadequate the society. Our society was established there are millennia according to individualistic patterns. Each one wants things for him with exclusiveness and the way of obtaining them it is the dispute with anyone that wants the same thing. It is the called the stronger law.

        This is a reality, do you like it or not, Manuel.

        Yes it is a reality, but it can be changed. Think, for example, on the millions of private automobiles that exist. What parcel of nature is it necessary to be destroyed to build them and to maintain them working? Uselessly because we can perfectly live without them, there are enough bus, trucks or trains. I think that even of that we could get rid.

        Well, Manuel, you know very well how much of our efficiency it would be lost without them.

        Who did establish we need 100% efficiency at work? We do need to progress at any cost? The same guys that want the maximum of things for themselves.

        And what to do with the million workers in the automobile industry and to all to it tied up? Would unemployed be like million now?

        You touched in a point more of our society inadequacy. The fact of almost everybody want things for themselves with exclusiveness it created that situation. Reason each one think cannot live if he doesn't have one or two of the best automobiles of the year? Each one of us always wants a car more, a newer car or a more sophisticated one. Reason? Or for something? Larger comfort? Need? A little of each but mainly need of identity statement. I am a winner, I am a success person, see what I possess... I am better, superior to those inferior losers that don't have capacity to possess those things.

        By that it has been practically impossible to control the world economy propitiating an employment for each one. Even at certain time behind the managers got to maintain a rate of low unemployment, never allowing that arrived to zero or to arrive to an offer of larger employment than the demand, what would be redundant in an uncontrollable elevation of the wages which it would be a calamity for them. Today it seems they lost control and they don't know what to do.

        Everything good, but does it have a solution?

        Of course it has, Ruth. What the governments do to remedy the situation? They try to create more employment. The City hall of Sao Paulo recently hired 10000 people to clean streets, parks and gardens. Before we lived perfectly well without them. It is the same as to hire thousands of people to open an enormous hole in the field and later to turn to fill it with the same soil that was removed. Another solution of the governments is to attract foreign capital to produce more useless things and to do to grow the global war for markets.

        You talk in useless things, what do you exactly want to say?

        Things without usefulness, things they would not need to be done, which would not need to exist. I can mention hundreds of examples. I will just speak in one to show what want to say. Any couple of the called civilized world wants to possess and works like a donkey to get the best house to live and to create its children, its house should have individual rooms for each son with exclusive bathrooms. It should be equipped with one or several, stoves, refrigerators, freezers, microwaves, clothes washing machines, dishes washing machines, computers, telephones, televisions, sound apparels, pieces of furniture of the best quality, rugs, curtains, conditioned air, works of art, pictures, books, disks, cars in the garage, gymnastics apparels, gardens and employees to take care of everything. The couple also wants to possess a country house or a beach house, boat, airplane and money for vacations, sports, tourism, university for the children, life insurance, health insurance and retirement. Imagine the effort spent for the totality of couples in the world that want to possess those things and what they represent in nature destruction. Imagine a society that it had not been based on the need of wanting things for him with exclusiveness, but where everything belonged to everybody. They could live together in small communities where had access to all those comforts for a tiny cost, because there would not be necessary so much of each one of those things. Everything would be shared. There would not be lack of employment because each one would have its own tasks to accomplish seeking the community, not its own interest. There would be an appropriate division of work where employment as such it would not exist. Besides, they could enjoy a much more intense social conviviality. Think of the thousands of people that live in apartments and that daily cross with its neighbors and neither of giving a good morning they are capable.

        Well, Manuel, this is a utopia. Imagine the fights when two want to read the same book or to see another television program or to eat something different. In Israel they tried to do something similar, the kibbutz, but it seems to have no real success.

        Centuries of life in common would teach them to live in peace. Sure also that islands as those in our inadequate society tend to be rejected as strange bodies. That could only work in a global society, where everybody lived in the same way.

        I continue thinking that is utopia. What would happen with the nations, the governments, the great industrial gatherings, the great organizations as the Churches, the political and scientific organizations, the banks, the stock exchange and so much more things?

        Nothing else than useless things.

        Useless?

        Well, Manuel, a world without governments would be the chaos, would not?

        It would be if it continued inhabited by the same people that inhabit it now. As they are the same that created all the problems, all the problems would disappear if they modified, they stopped being what mistakenly think they are and they became what they really are.

        I didn't understand. Explain better.

        The men think that are men with of a series of psychological attributes that mistakenly believe they are men's exclusiveness. The women believe that are women with a series of psychological attributes that mistakenly believe they are women's exclusiveness. A great amount of men and women that label themselves homosexuals also exist, they don't accept to be just men or women. They believe for they feel pulses different from the natural pulses of attraction between sexes they should be a third thing. And they end up producing an immense series of problems. Instead of admitting that possess psychological disturbances that can be removed they prefer to imagine that they are special creatures, at maximum men or women different from the common ones.

        I didn't still understand where you want to arrive.

        Take a lion little breed and create it at home with children, cats and dogs. Teach it behaving meekly as a pet. Certainly it will end up presenting a behavior different from the one of its jungle siblings. It acquired a series of characteristics different from the characteristics common to all the lions. It learned how to represent a certain role. It won't be by that it will leave of being a lion. It doesn't matter how it behaves, it will always be just a lion. One cannot also say that it is better or worse than the other lions. Return it to the jungle from where it came without being trained to act like the common lions and it will perish. But it will always be a lion, nothing else than a lion.

        I continue in the same, Manuel.

        Like a human being, a university teacher, with doctorate, famous for its accomplishments, Nobel Prize, etc., is he better than an illiterate convict is? Or is a woman that works out of home better than one only devoted to home? Or is an eminent politician better than the beggar of the corner is?

        As human beings they are identical, but undoubtedly a great politician contributes more than a beggar to common welfare does.

        No doubt, unless that great politician hides a great thief. But it is not that I want to enhance. What I want to show is how harmful it is to classify people giving to them an identity related to its activities culture, ownership’s, color of the skin, religion or other thing any. People's classification drives to discrimination and oppression. We created the notion of races. We classified the human beings as white, blacks or yellow, according to the color of its skin. If we stopped there it would not be anything of bad, but the whites affirm that the blacks or the yellows are inferior perhaps because they didn't have so much material success, forgetting for example that were shown as inferior humans when they enslaved the blacks. But they don't think like this, they believe that made it because they feel to be better. Always the old identity problem. I am better than you because I have power...

        I didn't still hit upon where you want to arrive, Manuel.

        All those facts I showed indicate one alone thing: the man since immemorial times developed a feeble need to have an identity, something that point out over the others. Men and women believe that they "are" its abilities or acquired attributes, they identify with those things, in the same way the lion would have acquired a domestic identity, or that can have a more important and significant identity for they have certain color of the skin.

        That simple fact produced a society that had beginning there are thousands of years that forced the creation of nations, governments, organizations of whole type and that would be totally useless in a society that didn't have concerns with identity.

        Do you think then that a thing as simple as to want to have an identity is responsible for the creation of a society so full of problems as the one we have today?

        Exactly. All the children are early taught to assume the responsibility for its own survival no matter they are naturally impelled to its survival. They are guided to learn and to develop activities that allow to survive. That is healthy and natural. It happens to a peasant's son that cultivates the soil or with a great finances magnate's son.

        Beside that, parents that had difficulties with their own lives have a quite natural desire that its children don't have to face the same problems and they tend to motivate them to improve themselves for they become more capable to outline the problems. That is also natural and healthy, but what usually happens it is not this. Parents that find survival difficulties for example notice that people that don't have those problems exist, they observe for example that those people have a profession that allows them a looser life. They conclude mistakenly that it is like this because they "are" lawyers, economists, doctors, engineers, teachers, political, managers, etc. and they will say: I will make the maximum effort so that my children "are" lawyers, doctors or similar things or they will motivate its children to "be" or to "become" those things. The fundamental mistake there resides, instead of looking for "to have" a profession that facilitates its life they believe that need "to be" that profession. It is common to hear: what will you "be" when you grow? said to a child.

        Well, Manuel, I don't see any difference if a person thinks that is a teacher or possesses a teacher's profession, practically it seems to be the same thing.

        Technically, yes, but what it generates is what has harmful implications. A person that thinks "to be" a teacher it integrated that aspect into its identity and it will pass seeing him no more like Peter or John, a common human being, but as a teacher, somebody highlighted of other, making way for people's classification. Starting from here there won't just be human beings but doctors, scientists, farmers, journalists, rich, poor, wise persons, ignorant and depending on the success kind that they can have reached it will establish hierarchies. The same will happen with a person that says: I am who "has" that profession or any other status.

        Even so, I don't hit upon why that can be constituted in problems or damages.

        See an example. When two people that don't know each other, they are placed face to face, for a reason any, the first thing that appears is a fear feeling. Perhaps a residue of that primitive ancestral fear that appeared in the jungle when two animals meet. To follow an evaluation. Who is he? Is it stronger or weaker than I? Starting from the evaluation convlusion it has origin an action: escape or attack.

        I remember perfectly well one occasion there are many years ago, when I introduced a manager to other manager. There were initially a handshakes when both they asked me who "was" the other. The need to know who "is" reveals the fear I mentioned. If there was not this fear, each one peacefully would see before itself a human being of the masculine sex. Nothing else. There would not be the need to ask "who is", after they know through my information who was who a dialogue truly hostile it was developed. It was a true fight, a chat of successive aggressions from one to the other. Both clearly manifested its warring spirit, inheritance of the ancestral male. At that time I was very surprised, today I think to understand the reason.

        It could have happened in another way if one recognized the superiority of the other and to him submitted and the other it recognized superior and submitted the other. We would then have a ruler-dominated relationship.

        In both cases, a true war relationship, always characterized by destruction, separation, hostility, never by understanding, union or friendship.

        What does have this there to be with identity, Manuel?

        Everything. If I see myself as a wise person and meet somebody that I repute less wise person, automatically I place myself in a superior position and I classify the other as inferior. We can never have a true relationship among two human people. Our relationship will always belong to master to student, of superior to inferior, of more powerful for less powerful and vice-versa.

        I think that I begin to understand what you mean, Manuel. When two people just meet as equal human beings a war any it is unchained, they are noticed the same, there are not superior and inferior. each one simply enjoys the presence of the another in peace and joy.

        That, Ruth, I believe that all the human problems will be resolved when all the people they transform, abdicating naturally of its need of possessing an identity that gives them power on others.

        Now, Manuel, I begin to understand what is the war of the sexes and why you think the only solution is to end it.

        Exactly, Ruth, the man built for himself an identity that he calls masculine, which is characterized fundamentally for the dominance and in a certain way he forced the woman to build for her same an identity that calls feminine and that is characterized by being dominated.

        That the feminist movements appeared, to end that dominance, Manuel, is it not?

        Yes, but they represent a reaction to the dominance and any reaction type means hostility, war. They can only take to the improvement of the war or to a change of roles where woman will start to dominate the man, in case she wins that war.

        I now remembered a romance where a medical embryologist made a conference in a Medical Congress. In its work with embryos she had discovered the possibility to excite the development of a human ovum through drugs. Then a woman could be born without the competition of the masculine spermatozoon. The book was written years before the cloning of superior animals to be got. As besides embryologist she was also considered a feminist, she took advantage of speaking to a masculine participant majority, saying that in the future the man would become disposable and it would disappear of the surface of the earth, becoming needless. There would just be a better world only composed of women. Of course would get lost everything that composes the universe of the sexes, beyond just the reproductive function, but she seemed not to give importance to that fact. I was imagining how it would be annoying a world where there was an only sex.

        It is true. Manuel, it should be very annoying and monotonous.

        It could be a solution. But the worst possible. I think that the best solution is still the coalition of masculine and feminine identities, so much in men as in women. In a similar way to a new human being birth that gives it when a feminine cell, the ovum, is founded to a masculine cell, the spermatozoon, the coalition between what we call feminine identity and masculine identity will generate a new more complete and harmonic human being. When all the inhabitants of the earth accomplish that coalition a new Humanity it will be born, with a more significant life and harmony.

        I think it is a total impossibility. Even you hesitate in giving a step in that direction, you are trying to convince me and you didn't still get, imagine to convince each inhabitant of the planet to do it...

        Certainly, but there are indications that is getting ready a climate so that can take place.

        How?

        An example. Science accepts that there are cases where a person can almost usually live when one of its cerebral hemispheres is damaged or even extirpated. This means that the hemispheres are almost autonomous. In certain too serious cases of Epilepsy, the surgical separation of the connections between the two hemispheres, allows the patient to free of the crises. This indicates that can have a possible great disharmony between the hemispheres. It also knows the Science that everything that links to reasoning is processed in the left hemisphere and everything that links to emotions is processed in the right hemisphere.

        It is undeniable the discrimination we do there are centuries between reason and emotions. We believe that no good rational decision can be accomplished under the influx of emotions. We say that the emotional cannot be mixed to the rational. We strongly criticize somebody that makes an emotional decision. We think reason and heart cannot walk committees. It is common to say that the heart has reasons that the own reason ignores.

        This seems exactly equal to that history of pink clothes, Manuel. Somebody established that it should be good and true and we all accepted without thinking.

        Certainly, Ruth. What, in fact, do we do when thinking this way?

        I think we create an antagonism between our hemispheres. We place the two in opposition. We don't allow they work at the same time. We create a true interior division. It seems we make two different people to live inside of us. Each one of them acts in a different way and certainly they will enter in shock, because each one seeks different things.

        Certainly. The scientists also say that we just use a small portion of the enormous potential of our brains. Won't that also be a reason? When we use a side we totally block the other side.

        Surely.

        Then if we discover a healthy way where our two hemispheres work at the same time and in harmony won't we be giving birth to a new more complete, entire human being and better?

        I believe yes, Manuel.

        Let us see another aspect of the problem. Is not it also said that man is reason and woman emotion?

        Yes, Manuel. Now it is being clearer. Everything that links with reason, thought, inequality, organization, laws, rules, discipline, discrimination, justice, moral, sin, punishment, fights, obedience or power composes the masculine identity and everything that links with emotions, freedom, fraternity, feelings, affection, receptivity, reception, equality or union composes the feminine identity. And all those things seem to be opposite, by this can't walk committees, the hemispheres separated, there is antagonism between man and woman. Woman hides in its right hemisphere and man in its left.

        You said well, Ruth. It seems... it seems that are opposite and antagonistic. Actually they are not.

        No?

        No. Not everybody. I will tell you a history that I recently read in a book wrote by a born Jew and raised in Japan. The author's intention was to show the likeness and the differences between Japanese way of thinking and the Jew or western way. To illustrate a way of being genuinely Japanese he told what happened in a village of Japan inland. It was a poverty time, it didn't rain and there was shortage of food. The equivalent to the mayor of the village decided to do some thing to minimize the problem. He liberated the farmers of the payment of taxes for a certain period. He met with the community's leaders and he communicated its decision, believing that the farmers, free from the taxes, would sell its products for a very smaller price and until they supplied gratuitously to who could not pay. Everybody was happy, the times of poverty left. The only that didn't like was the mayor's hierarchical superior that censored him and he said that the law demanded the payment of taxes. He answered that community's welfare was above the law. In certain cases law must be forgot.

        It is noticed clearly in this small history the masculine inflexibility and the feminine flexibility. Masculine thinking where law is supreme, it needs to be obeyed and feminine thinking that throws the law in the garbage when face humanism.

        Some time ago I knew about a sick lady that was not assisted in a hospital because the doctor that sent her wrote in a form what should be written in another. Both were signed by the doctor. The rigid bureaucrat declared that the regulation didn't allow she went to be assisted and he sent her home.

        I agree, Manuel, but things continue separate, each one comes from a hemisphere, law opposing to humanism. I don't see how they can melt. I cannot imagine an affective aggressiveness, a dominant reception or a kind fight.

        Those things cannot really melt. I think that should be in another way. When a human spermatozoon found to a human ovum, what does happen?

        Well, a new one being is born, which it is no more an ovum, neither spermatozoon nor a mixture of both, a human being is born

        Thus, in the same way the coalition of a masculine considered attitude with a feminine, antagonistic to each other considered attitude, it should make to be born a new attitude, better than the two that gave it origin. Like this the coalition of the masculine considered need of dominating when melting with the feminine considered characteristic of submitting should necessarily make to be born a new attitude that won't be dominance or submission, but a new attitude that will substitute both in a much more appropriate way. Perhaps its name comes to be "understanding".

        It is not thus too difficult to end that the coalition of the cerebral hemispheres, equivalent to the coalition of the masculine and feminine attitudes, it will give to the light a new human being with a mental potential a lot of times greater because its hemispheres will work in unison, of given hands, both working in the same direction and not fighting by the existent hostile division.

        It makes very sense your theory.

        It is not just a theory and it is not also mine, dear Ruth, it is a fact.

        Fact? Reason then, in every century of history, didn't it happen to anybody?

        I know a person to whom that really happened.

        Who?

        Jesus.

        Well, he was an exceptional case... why didn't happen to others?

        The reason is simple, but seemingly unsurpassable.

        Simple?

        Yes. Its name is "fear".

        Fear? Fear of what?

        The main is fear of losing the own identity. There are other fears that are consequences of this primordial fear.

        I cannot believe... Explain better.

        Before anything else, let us see together what happened in this very moment. When asking me to explain you placed me in the position about who knows and you was placed in the position about who doesn't know. You attributed to me a teacher identity and to you a student identity. Master and pupil. Of course I gave reason for that because I assumed the attitude about who knows some thing. I almost assumed without noticing a master's attitude. We classified ourselves. If that attitude persists what will it happen?

        If I agree with what you say I will end up learning some thing that can be useful for me; if I don't agree we will end in an endless discussion where each one will be trenched on its side defending its ideas. It can result in a true war.

        Certain. Other things can also happen. Like you are seeing me as who knows, the master, it can be given the case of not to accept but for not having to work with hostilities, you fake to accept and you undergo my master authority. Or perhaps you submit for a respect subject for the master's image, which was taught you to respect. In highest, an amount of feelings sprouts, they interfere and they subvert the original relationship intention.

        Now I begin to understand. An oppressor that is imposed appears and an oppressed one that submits, or two warriors that wrap up in a contend.

        Exactly, Ruth, because we accomplished a relationship through our identities and not like two equal human beings. Did you notice the individual activity and separate from each one of the hemispheres? Did you see how representation of roles it only happened?

        I think yes. The left side shows in the authority notion, of respect, of placing above or in a lower position, in the need to accept, to fight, to flee or to accept. The right side appears in the feelings that appear and in the difficulty of working with them because they interfere in what we think, in a pulse of fleeing, in a rage in submitting, in a pleasure to be known or to be superior... it doesn't have an end.

        It is quite so. If we could live a true relationship between two perfectly equal human people, everything would be different. The understanding than each one said it would be different and we could together to discover much more significant things.

        Whole human relationship during centuries comes processing under two optics, both unsatisfactory and destructive: oppressor and oppressed, and rational.

        Everything well. As woman, representative of an oppressed class, I want to speak of the first relationship type; oppressor-oppressed. Then you will speak about the relationship that you entitled rational. Do you agree?

        Yes, Ruth, but don't forget that we still have to change a lot of ideas on that primordial fear that I mentioned. The fear of losing the identity.

        Certain. I don't I know through where to begin, but I think in what I need to speak, certainly others fears will appear. I feel that in the heart of any human problem some kind of fear exercises a fundamental function. I will begin asking questions that I will try to answer.

        What is to oppress? Who is the oppressor? Why anybody is impelled to oppress?

        To oppress is to impose the other, to submit him to its will. It is the exercise of power.

        The janitor of our building that forces the black domestic maid to use the service elevator has power to oppress. What gives him that power? Perhaps some racist manager has created a discriminating rule and the janitor to him it submits. Perhaps the manager is not a racist but he just submits to the will of the inhabitants that feel repugnance in having contact with people that classify as inferior. An oppressor that is also oppressed. He is afraid of losing the job if he doesn't do that the established rules are executed. Fears, repugnance... just feelings that disturb relationships.

        Did a decree of stupid humans that call to themselves "Serbians" oppress, kill and expel of its houses a great population of humans that call to themselves "Albanians". Reason? Does something make an Albanian different from a Serbian a human person? Those same Albanians returned killing and oppressing the Serbians when shielded in the power of NATO. Economic problems? Perhaps, but at end just result of feelings, hate, fears, revenges, prejudices...

        The reason says they are the same, identical human people. Serbian, Albanian, janitor, inhabitants, manager, maidservant, all of them nothing are besides human creatures, but the feelings linked to its identities originate oppression and submission. Evident result of the divided action of cerebral hemispheres.

        The left side says: we are the same, we should act this or that way; or, we are totally different, we cannot mix ourselves, we are stronger, we are entitled. The right side says: but there is a tremendous hate sprouting here; we are not the same or different, we cannot accept any classification type; I feel repugnance, I want revenge.

        The external war is only the result of an internal war, the hostility coming from hemispheres separation. The masculine and the feminine in perpetual fight.

        Woman's oppression for centuries exercised by the man, so decanted by the feminist movements, actually it is illusory. Both for centuries they exercise oppression and they are oppressed, each one to its own way.

        Let us see a quite common situation. A housewife devoted to take care of the house and of the children and the husband that works to sustain home. At the beginning everything was flowers. With time everything changes, the husband always arrives drunk, high hours of the night, beats the woman, beats the children, he raped the 13 year-old oldest daughter. The woman tolerates the situation in silence. What can she do? It is a victim more of the macho oppression. The only solution that sees is to take the children and to abandon home and the husband that became unrecognizable. But how? Where will they live? How to provide its support and the children? She does not have a profession, the maximum that can get it is been to turn a domestic maid, but what will make with the small children? She can get some help of a public organ or of relatives, but a home that was destined to be happy was destroyed. Each one of its members will suffer negative consequences for the rest of its lives.

        How us, outside, see a situation like that? Or other, not so drastic, where we see families living completely unsatisfactory situations.

        In general we search culprits. The blame is of that son of a bitch sexist husband. Some thing the woman should have been doing for him to become that way. The culprit is the government that nothing does. That is the result of the existence of the patriarchal society invented by the men. It is religion lack. It is moral lack. They are the bad companies. Etc. etc. etc.

        We also search for solutions. We need to improve the education level, we need more adequate laws, we need a better distribution of incomes, we need political representatives more gone back to public welfare...

        We think of an endless number of things, less in the pink cloth. Man is active, woman is passive. Somebody said that that was true and crowds believe. That it settled down the ideal family should be like this: man provides the support and woman takes care of home.

        The wild industrialization drove to the change than per centuries it seemed to be adequate. We need more workers and more consumers. Let us motivate the women's work in industry, in trade and in services and we will have a very larger number of workers and of consumers. The world economy will arise to at unimaginable levels.

        But that is a secondary effect. The primordial mistake resides in the establishment of that ideal family. The man provides and the woman takes care.

        We see too easily the oppressed woman, the suffering victim. We have difficulty of seeing the man's suffering oppressed by the weight of the responsibility that was forced to assume when identifying as supplier and only responsible. He is oppressor when it imposes its brutal pulses on the woman and it is oppressed by its pulses of having to be strong, capable and responsible, at the same time that its feminine side that ignores it impels him to be docile, receptive, passive and affectionate. She is oppressed by the irrational attacks of her husband and oppressor because without knowing obstinately she stay eternally passive demanding force, capacity and responsibility of her husband. In highest, both they became unhappy because they are unable to free of the roles that they were unconsciously forced to represent. Because actually, activity or passivity are just roles that we are taught and that try to represent in the best way we can.

        Rioted with its situation the women went to fight. The feminist movements appeared. No more macho oppression, no more to be dominated by the men, we want to be heard. What did they get? Double work day, they are becoming so oppressors and rulers than the men and they are making a new man type, which is submissive, which takes care of home and of the children, a lot similar to the submissive women of the traditional family.

        On the other hand, a macho reaction it is appearing. In the same way they were formed feminist organizations they are being formed anti-feminists organizations. Worried by seeing women occupying traditionally masculine positions they intend foolishly to return at the good old times when the noble gentleman looks for in the work for home support and its queen stays submissive and obedient taking care of home and children.

        I see, dear Ruth, that you are catching the spirit of the thing. The war of the sexes became more intense and visible. Is it not?

        It is lamentable, but it is as I am seeing. The impulse of the feminine claiming forced the legislators, men in its immense majority, to make to woman favorable laws to the point of them to become hurt in its macho prides. To continue like this, even more thousand years of assumed concessions would be enough to improve the situation of both.

        Do you know the reason?

        I didn't have time to think on the subject.

        Because so much men as women only get to think to the masculine considered way. They want to change the world for the change of structures, altering laws and regulations, products of masculine thinking, on the left side of the brain. That comes being fact there are centuries and the result it is easy to see. It is enough to look at for the current world, a demoniac confusion. Admirable the effort spent for the women that they were labeled feminists, even so without noticing it they still opened more the hole begun by the men of they just want things for themselves, its freedom and its equality of rights. They just got to become stronger and capable contenders in the secular war of sexes; they just got to turn more efficient the action of its left hemispheres. Blind women, just as men, they continue to see that the only possible solution will only be reached when they give hands and together as persons, not like men or women, they look together for the solution. There whole problem has its origin; we want things for ourselves, to turn more significant, important and powerful our own identity. Our eyes are always gone back to ourselves; we are unable to look at for the other ones.

        This remembers Christianity, socialism, is it not, Manuel? Be not selfish, help your brother, share what you have, private property abolition, and social classes abolition...

        It may remind but nothing has there to be. The religions say "do not be selfish" but they don't say how this can be got, they say "help your brother" and people do help not because they have some interest for him but because they obey a supposed will of God or because they intend to gain the Heavens or they say "share what you have" and nobody divides thing any, at the most they give what it is not necessary or for they inflate its own ego believing that are generous. It was good you to speak in private property. The socialists noticed the evils generated by the private property. In fact in this universally accepted concept, that somebody can be owner of some thing, resides the foundation of most of human problems. The Russian revolutionaries intended to abolish the private property, but that could only work if it was done in the whole world and at the same time. Due to the fact of nations exist, an alone of them that did the abolition it would have to continue living together with the other ones and automatically it would become inadequate the abolition. What did they make then? They confiscated the properties and the production means and they transferred them to Government. The Government became proprietor of everything. The deprived property turned public property. Nobody more could say, this house is mine, but for concession of the Government it could live in it acquiring rights on the house, what is more or less the same thing. On the other hand the Government it is constituted of people, which then passed to have a larger power on the other ones. Ownership evil just moved of hands.

        Why did you say that could only work if it was done in the whole world and at the same time? Why could it not be done in an only country?

        It is something similar to what would happen if a given country liberated the use of drugs. The price would fall vertically, the traffickers would lose interest and the consumption with time it would decrease, but they would be created other problems. The low price would motivate the smuggling to other countries and it would attract the outside drug addicts. It would be the best and only solution for the problem of the drugs if done all over the world and at the same time. Practically an impossibility. The same thing with private property, it can only disappear if the governments, the countries, the nationalities, the ethnic, the religions and the social organizations of all types disappear.

        That is still a larger impossibility. I cannot imagine a world without nations or governments. It would be the absolute chaos...

        Called them anarchist movements that proliferated at the beginning of the century proposed that, governments' abolition and its proposal exactly, as I understand, it was the best thing than it could happen to Humanity. They wanted a world without governments. But they didn't have any success because its strategy was to knock down the governments through fighting. They established a war and they were defeated by the most powerful enemy: the own governments and the human need to dominate. They were not given notice that a world without governments would also need not to have nations, nationalities, races, ethnic, or religions and it would also have to be abolished the humans' monumental stupidity. Something totally impossible of being got through fights or combats.

        After all, why do we need governments? Simply because those that have any type of power see the whole ones that can submit as being immature children that need to be tutored and driven and these see to themselves in the same way. That is the current reality that Humanity lives. Any person that has or see some type of social problem it believes that it s government's responsibility to solve it.

        Each truly productive human being spend a great part of its work effort to sustain a fantastic crowd of professionals that can become totally useless, as those involved in political activities, police, right, religion, armed forces, advertising, finances and others. Activities that will become completely obsolete when Humanity frees of its stupidity.

        Are you saying, Manuel, that consider me, your own wife and the whole rest of humanity as being stupid?

        Calm, Ruth, I also include myself in this contingent... What I call stupidity is consequence of that primordial fear that I referred before. Do you remind?

        I do remind, yes, the fear of losing the own identity, is it not?

        Yes. It is such little noticed fear that nobody can believe that is true. But it is a fear that paralyzes, that makes to stop as a stubborn donkey and takes to think that is stupidity.

        Well, Manuel, what seems stupidity it is what you said that somebody could be afraid of losing its own identity. I cannot also imagine something that can provoke that fear.

        To make things clear it is necessary to be aware that a person's identity doesn't limit to its name, its parents' names, its date of birth, its birthplace and similar things. What it understands for identity it is something built through the life that the person is going accumulating and that describes it. When a person gets married starts to say that is married. When it has children starts to say that is a father or a mother. If graduate in a military academy it starts to say that is a sergeant or a captain. If practice sports sportsman it is entitled. If like to collect it entitles a collector. If works in police says that is a policeman. If feels attraction for people of its sex it says that is a homosexual. If practice a religion it says that is a religious. Reasoning easiness it says that is intelligent. If lived many years it says that is an old one and so on. All those existences constitute a person's identity. We make a thousand things in life to enrich our identity. We always want to turn it better and more perfect. We always want to get rid of that that we see in us as defects and we want to absorb and to integrate to our identity everything we considered positive quality. A sincere priest will make the possible maximum to be the best possible priest. A sincere politician will make the possible maximum to become the best possible politician. A thief will make the same thing.

        Imagine now, Ruth, that you have a Catholic friend, that is going to the mass to Sundays, that it participates assiduously of the Church events, that it believes sincerely in everything the Church says it should believe to be a good Christian. Imagine that you tell her that knows a way she can become a hundred times better person but she will need to leave of believing in everything that believes in relation to its religion. Which will its reaction be?

        She will want even to know what it is. Certainly she will say: To leave of being Catholic, me? Need to kill me before!

        Why?

        If we were in a judgement, Manuel, and I went to lawyer I would protest saying that you would be driving the witness. It seems that is for fear of losing its Catholic identity...

        Actually it is not well like this. The true fear that appears is the fear of not knowing what else can become. She until could admit the possibility to leave of being Catholic but she will be panicky when imagining what can become. She notices to be totally impossible for her to change something that went building out with so much effort for the life for something completely unknown. Even if she completely trust on you, it will be impossible to her to admit that to possess what you waive it will compensate to subtract what already possesses of its identity. Imagine then if you inform her that its identity will become a round anything.

        Actually if she lives the experience of the hemispheres integration she will end up being surprised and certainly she will say, "how was I capable to believe in such great nonsense’s"?

        Just for exercise, imagine proposing the same thing to a famous and admired psychiatry teacher, to a millionaire acquaintance, to a Literature Nobel Prize, to your boss or the supermarket cashier.

        In spite of the apparent difficulty the fundamental problem is not there. The great problem that needs to be enhanced is the mistake where all we incur when confusing what we have with what we are. If I have a faith I say that I am a believer. If I have a function any I say that I am that function. Even if I convince me not to be a dentist I will never lose my ability to treat teeth.

        There is a common practice that till to certain point I consider wrong and that is intensely defended by the psychologists, mainly the anti-feminists, that is the indispensable need that a child has to have a paternal illustration to be mirrored to become a true man. To mirror in a father it is nothing else than to learn to live the role represented by the father. Its parents may have also been taught from children to represent totally defective parents' roles and what will receive it will also be a defective copy. Actually nine months before they are born they already absorbed an exact copy of its parents. Posterior teaching only increase an already worsen inadequate situation.

        Those facts seemingly banal they are fundamentally responsible for the erection of the current called patriarchal society due to the also apparent way of masculine thinking. Just as our ancestral primitive one that possessed a more efficient club it felt safer because it could say "that club is mine" and therefore, " I feel safe because I am possessor of this club that assures me power to submit anyone", each one of us feels safer as it possesses larger amount of positive attributes in its identity. Anyone that acquired wealth and says "I am rich", he feels more safe than before for the power the wealth brings him.

        Of there thus the fear of the identity loss, it represents loss of power that generates insecurity.

        Reason a woman hesitates in abandoning her husband when she discovers that he betrays her with other woman? Perhaps she says: what will I become when leave of being the admiral's wife? Fear of identity loss for what represents in loss of safety.

        I may even agree to what you say, Manuel, they are facts, everybody lives together with those problems. How can a person be freed of that fear and what will happen when become free?

        Before any other thing it needs to convince that is perfectly possible to live without giving the minimum importance to its own identity, which is something without the smallest value. It is just something it holds on to feel safety.

        As somebody that drops in a river and holds on to a flotation log. It will continue eternally being taken for by the force of the waters seized to that log hoping somebody can save it.

        You found a quite true analogy, Ruth. It is necessary that is freed of the log and to find in it the means to reach the margin. Even if doesn't know how to swim it can discover that is capable to float and maintaining the calm, with soft movements can arrive to the margin.

        The problem is that feels insecure and even if somebody of the margin tells it what to do, it won't have courage. The fear will impede it.

        It seems impossible then...

        No. It means that it is good for nothing to know what to do. Even if somebody intellectually is convinced that its identity represents a difficulty to its liberation it will continue with fingernails and teeth seized to it. The roots of its fear are deeply anchored in its interior. It is necessary that an experience that nothing seems to have with the problem happens and affects the foundations of those roots. The intellectual knowledge of a fact doesn't generate changes, it is just knowledge. Perhaps an item more added to the existent identity.

        What experience is that?

        I know about some, they may have many others. It can happen spontaneously, a person in its daily tasks, suddenly, causeless apparent it notices a type of light exploding in its interior and starting from there everything changes, it becomes a very different person than it believed to be. A disaster or a serious disease with imminent death can make the same thing. Years and years of religious practices on meditation like those of Christian saints, Buddhists, Zen-Buddhists, yoga, Sufis and others can take to transforming interior illumination. Some types of psychotherapies also.

        I don't trust those types a lot because they are very delayed or random and in general they need gurus, masters or therapists and it seems there to be danger that the person ends dependent of them or be eternally prey to established dogmas. I am not denying value to those practices, I just believe that total liberation will only be possible if done solitarily. If the person that is seized to that log it is save following the instructions of that one in the margin, at least it will stay to him bundle for gratitude and that will result in a chain more. It is necessary that decides to try to release the log for its own inner forces, that decides to try for to feel lost and to acquire trust as it sees by its own eyes and not by the eyes of the other ones. The simple fact of noticing that by itself it arrived to the margin it will give safety that is capable. Inside of himself it will find solutions for any problems without depending on others.

        Well, Manuel, I may even believe that everything that you have been saying up to now it is true, but I don't get to see why the person seized to the log will take a risk to arrive alone to the margin when somebody it is available to help it. It is much more comfortable and safe. Humanity's immense majority lives perfectly well with its faiths or with its disbelieves, they face similar problems anywhere in the world and in one or other way they survive and they take advantage of the life as they can. Life is what it sees everywhere. Who can more it cries less. It has been like this per centuries and it will continue like this. Means nothing some few ones they don't conform and they want to transform the world. Ourselves, we are a typical example. We are a common family, relatively happy; we face problems with the means that we have to face them. There are happier than us and there are less happy. I don't see how that can be changed. The weakest is oppressed by the strongest, the richest enjoys more things, the poor dies from hunger, the wars kill thousands of people, the diseases, the criminals and the natural phenomenon’s also. Anyone is subject to receive a bullet lost in the head in a fight of traffickers with the police. Life in earth is that, I don't believe that can be changed. The governments, the sciences, the religions and the organizations make what they can to minimize that situation but fundamentally anything changed there are centuries, why do you think it can change? For the devaluation of our identities? It is ingenuousness excess! Nobody wants to change anything, mainly those that have some type of power because anyone not satisfied won't also want to change, it will just want to ascend in social status and acquire power for itself.

        All this is true, Ruth, it is the reality we easily can see. In each human being shines a spark that represents a longing of freedom that impels it becoming free, because it feels hindered in its actions. The great problem is that each one sees that freedom to its own way. Jesus, Ghandi, Mohammed, Gengis Kan, Hitler, Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt, Buddha, Freud, Confucius and thousands of others were impelled in the search of freedom for the people, but each one saw the freedom under its own prism.

        Little time ago I read again a book, written in the fifties, where the author, which was shown quite conscious of the world situation, she called United States of "the last rampart of freedom" represented by its democracy, in opposition to the growing power of communist countries. She believed that freedom was what she thought to be freedom for her, any leader of the communist countries believed in the same way, its notion of freedom was the only true. Any person with a minimum of intelligence can see that there is not true freedom so much in democracy as in communism. They are just inadequate political systems in the lack of better thing.

        We are 6 billion creatures living together side by side, each one trenched in what believes, ready to defend what believes right. We are 6 billion people fighting to each other because each one can only see the world with its own eyes, which were taught to look at some way. What were we doing since we began this chat?

        Each one trying to convince the other that its way of seeing is correct. A peculiar war of little intensity that will never have an end.

        Exactly. What does happen in the great human communities? That same war taken at wider levels. Communists fight against democrats, Christians fight against Muslims, Catholics fight against Protestants, environmentalists fight against managers, bosses fight against employees, and Jews fight against Arabs. Do continue until the small communities, what do you see? The husband fights against the wife, the parents against the children, the children to each other.

        A perpetual war there is been where two human beings they just meet, can it have a way of the peace to arrive among the great communities?

        It doesn't seem there to be the minimum possibility.

        Do you know why?

        I can deduce for what you have been saying. Because there is an internal war inside of each one that unchains all the other wars.

        Perfect. The war of sexes, the war between the inner man and woman, the war between considered masculine thinking and considered feminine thinking, the war between the left cerebral hemisphere and the right cerebral hemisphere. Nothing else than a war among prejudices inoculated by secular teaching. The representation of conflict roles. Roles that are anything more than identity factors.

        What did make our great leaders in the last 20 or 30 centuries?

        Hitler should have been thinking like this: I am the legitimate representative of a race destined to command the world because the rest is garbage, my mission it is to drive Germany becoming the most powerful nation of the world, nobody it will oppress us more because we will destroy everybody they oppose, beginning for the Jews, homosexuals and everybody that don't think like this, which are the great responsible persons.

        Stalin should have been thinking like this: I am the legitimate representative of a people that believes socialism is the only political system that can put an end to the social inequalities, my mission it is to take all the nations to the socialism, I will destroy the whole ones they place in my way.

        An eminent American politician should think like this: I am a legitimate representative of the most powerful democracy on earth, my mission it is to do with that all the nations become democracies under the weight of formidable economic sanctions that will exercise so our " American way of living" is maintained.

        Freud should have been thinking like this: my theory of psychoanalysis is the best thing to free people, if each inhabitant of the planet goes psychoanalysis all the problems they will disappear and I will be considered a god.

        A certain number of Arabs in its endless fights against Jews they decided to follow the teachings of Ghandi on the no-violence and they were simply seated and singing in a public street to impede the Jewish policemen's passage. Unable to work on a situation of that kind, because they were only taught to fight to maintain its status of only democratic nation and non oppressing in the Arab world, disoriented and affected by that unusual reaction the Jewish policemen they made true massacres.

        Nothing else than problems generated by the need of conserving identities.

        What differences do exist among American, Jews, Arabs, communist, psychoanalyzed, non-violent, policemen, Nazi, religious persons, atheists, democratic, totalitarian, Cuban, poor, rich, etc.?

        Nothing else than its identities, that some will defend to the price of the own life.

        Stupidity, Ruth, is it not?

        I begin now to understand what you call human stupidity. Would it be possible to end that stupidity?

        I believe yes, but great barriers exist. One of the great barriers calls "faith". That in what each one believes.

        From the birth we are bombarded with teachings that tell us what we should believe. Come those teachings from our parents, relatives or companions, come from our teachers or from communication means, until a certain age we accept the faiths that we are introduced with certain passivity. On time we learn how to decide between what we can or we cannot believe. A lot of people at least reach that phase, they simply accept for the rest of life what was they inoculated. The unanswerable fact is that each one acts in life based on its faiths, have been them naturally accepted or have been them fruit of its own decisions.

        If I accepted as a factor of my identity that "I am" a socialist whenever somehow I am requested to take any attitude, before assuming it the whole cast that defines the coherent attitudes with the socialism that it should govern a socialist I will consult, which previously stored in my memory and in agreement with what I find I will begin an action. This gives him in second fractions. Practically we are not aware of doing like this.

        If I think to be a Christian because I believe in what it says the Christianity, I will always be impelled to think and to act as it would be adapted to think and to act all Christian.

        If I believe in reincarnation I will always try to think or to act like they think and act everybody that believe in reincarnation.

        The same thing will give him if I believe to be somebody that believes in God's existence, a scientist that doesn't admit God's existence or of a spiritual world, an Hindi guru that admits to have been lit up, a peasant of the boundaries of China that admits that its life is product of Karma, a white American Protestant that admits to be better than its Hispanic neighbor, a mother that has disgust of breathing the same air that breathes its domestic maid and so on.

        In this way we block our spontaneity and our authenticity.

        Do we represent the roles established for each identity that we assume, is it not, Manuel?

        Yes, it is this and by this we simply reject any thing that thwarts what we believe. Even if somebody presents us a proposal for we free ourselves we are impeded of at least to consider it is possible because it collides with our faiths and at least impedes thinking that we need to be freed from something.

        What to do with anybody that believe to possess a spiritual dimension besides its material dimension to start to believe that it doesn't possess it or to the opposite, what to do with anybody that doesn't believe in a spiritual dimension to start to believe it?

        What would you, Ruth, think if I tell you that I see as a big stupidity to want to convince anybody to believe in a thing or in another one? That it is insanity to think that only have matter and spirit so much as only spirit or only matter? That is complete insanity to discuss that subject? That is insanity to stay bundle to this or that concept?

        I didn't still have time of thinking in the subject but to begin I would say that the insane is you... There is centuries Humanity it stays divided between those two positions.

        Why it stays? Because some foolish one affirmed that everything has to be precisely defined, without what it doesn't exist. The truth is that we are totally unable to define anything. We believe to be the kings of creation capable of everything because we learned how to build some gadgets, because we know how to read, to write and to calculate or because we are capable to express our ideas and to transmit them. Actually we are totally unable to define things. The maximum that got it is to do an image of those things, to say that they are a certain group of sounds or of drawings in a paper and we were very happy and proud for believing that defined them.

        I don't understand what you mean.

        See. What am I trying to do in this exact moment? I am using words that represent, each one of them, ideas and concepts, to try to prove a free affirmative that myself did that is insanity to discuss matter concepts and spirit. I can never know how will you absorb what I want to transmit, what really will you understand what I say.

        For example. Somebody can define matter in a frank way as being what we notice for the senses, which we can see and touch. A simpleton one will ask, is it a thought made of matter? The first will answer the thought in itself not, but it is the result of the interaction of biochemical, electric and enzymatic reactions that are processed in our brain. One will be satisfied because it explained the thing and the other because it believes that understood perfectly. Actually nothing happened, both continue without knowing what is matter, because both neither know what is "to be". The simple attempt of wanting to define "to be" by itself is an impossibility. Imagine trying to define matter or spirit.

        Imagine a discussion among a pure materialist and one that it believes in spirit existence, which we believe non-material. Years would pass trying to define things and they would end frustrated each one on its side. They would be just discussing personal faiths and they would never get to arrive to something useful and constructive, besides for the communication difficulty that I mentioned above.

        I continue not understanding what you mean, Manuel.

        What means it is that it is insanity sign to stay eternally trenched in our faiths. The ones that believe that the universe is only constituted of matter or energy, what is more or less the same thing, they reject everything that can come from the ones that believe that in the universe there is also a spiritual dimension. And these everything that comes from the other side. They will be eternally maintaining a polemic without sense instead of to give hands and together they unite its kindred own faiths for truly build something good for humanity.

        I cannot imagine how they can join faiths. How anybody of strictly scientific mentality can accept that anybody that has a cancer prayed asking God to cure him and got cured? At least the first will say that he didn't have cancer any or that absolutely was not cured. Or it cannot to arrive to admit that its own inner forces have made something to revert the situation. The other will look at him with scorn and will say, pity on you, didn't deserve to be favored by God with the faith that I possess.

        That is normal, Ruth. We believe that there has to be understanding that one will have unavoidably to accept the faiths of the other ones. But it is not necessary. Each one can continue faithful to what believes and even so they can join together to build something better starting from an event that by itself it causes divergence. Or saying in another way, is it good for something to discuss matter and spirit? Each one will try to convince the other that is right and as it concerns to faiths, any one will not move an inch from its faiths and they will spend time and energy in discussions that won't have end. Each one will end up going to its side frustrated because it didn't get to convince the other. Would not it be much better that they stopped worrying with sterile polemics and did they use its energy to build something useful starting from its individual experiences?

        I would like that you show me some example where that can be made.

        I can show several. Imagine a materialistic atheist and a spiritualistic religious person that both live an experience of last lives. Of course won't be easy to the first to participate in a thing of this type, but just admit the possibility. The religious person will say, there is a proof of reincarnation, I went in a passed life a baron in Louis’ XIV reign, I made every type of wickedness and in this life I am being purified. My spirit is the same of when I was that baron. The atheist will say, I lived an experience where it seemed to be a Lord in Edward’s III time, he made every type of wickedness. With certainty he was one ancestral of mine, those information came by the genetic way, through the generations.

        When they change ideas about its experiences unavoidably there will be a great discussion when they will separate furious, because they will be unable to accept the faiths one of the another. Actually there is need any that they accept or reject faiths. Much more constructive it would be that together they try to deepen the meaning of the experience and in what it could contribute to the improvement of its lives.

        What may for the religious person mean? In first place it will be a confirmation of its faith in the reincarnation, that will get him satisfied, my current spirit is the same that lived another life, I believe, I am right, foolish men or blind are the ones that don't believe. The second consequence is to have the confirmation that certain sufferings he have been having they are for ransom of wickedness that he had previously done and that are driving him into a purification way and gradual spiritual perfection that he believes.

        What may for the atheist mean? In first place it will confirm its faith in the value of scientific thinking. Some episodes of my ancestral life in some way were being transmitted through the generations. We don't know how that can be accomplished but Science some day will discover. Certainly it is not for spirits, as they want some foolish people. I don't see any meaning in the fact of that information to arrive to me after so many years, after all each one of us is heir of the genetics of its ancestral ones. If I consider that in just 20 generations, something around 400 years, there were necessary almost 2 million ancestral to give me origin, what importance can have for me if that distant ancestral one it was bad or not?

        Let me to conclude, Manuel. Both saw its experiences under the prism of its own faiths. They were arrested in explaining how the transmission of the information could be given in agreement to its faiths and they also evaluated the value of the information in agreement with its faiths. There was also a certain scorn for the faith of the other. What didn't get to see it is that starting from similar experiences they could, without worrying on faiths, together to discover other more important meanings for the experience they had. They just worried about the divergences of their faiths. Each one continued in its trench and the world lost the opportunity to get something more useful.

        Exactly, Ruth. After all matter or spirit are words that represent concepts of things that we just don't know what they are. We call matter to what we see and spirit to something that we don't see. The own spirit notion was invented to the likeness of the ether invented by the old scientists to explain things that didn't got to explain. If the spirit notion helps me to accept God, it is OK; if the spirit notion does that I deny God, it is OK too. They are just faiths that in one or in another way they help us to live. They fill our unanswerable inquiries. Our millennial stupidity is what takes us to be seized to faiths, to be trenched behind them fighting who believes in another things.

        On the other hand, what we are doing it seems a sterile academic discussion of things without practical importance when we see the world in endless wars among people and nations where thousands of people are killed, thousands are mutilated, thousands lose their houses and everything they possess, a colossal amount of money and effort is spent in the production of weapons that are simply destroyed, causing more destruction for its own destruction. Why do we accomplish those wars? Pure and simply in defense of our stupid faiths.

        Do you find Manuel that the wars are caused by stupid faiths?

        You it can answer to this question if you tell me what for serve the armed forces that each nation possesses. Think of the formidable amount of money and effort that it is worn-out to manufacture and to maintain ships, submarines, airplanes, helicopters, war tanks, canyons, missiles, machine guns, trucks, barracks, deposits of weapons and communication apparels. Think of the immense amount of tied up people to those activities that are sustained by the productive population of each country, those that manufacture and those that use all those things.

        I thought. It is fantastic.

        What do the politicians say to justify the maintenance of armed forces?

        Well, we need to have power for the defense of our territory, somebody can want to take the space where we live, and we need to defend what is ours.

        Do you want to know how many faiths they are built-in in what you spoke?

        I want.

        First. The faith that there is somebody that wants to invade us.

        Second. The faith that we need to defend, to avoid to be invaded.

        Third. The faith that we truly possess territories.

        Fourth. The faith that we are the ones that possess.

        Fifth. The faith that our might is enough for the defense.

        Sixth. The faith that the people pawned in the defense will be capable of well to accomplish its functions.

        Anything besides stupid faiths. I will talk about an analogy that shows a good reason why those faiths are stupid and they contribute for the problems to continue eternally. The success of the species that they inhabit the earth is due to how it is made its reproduction, the change of genes. When two well developed beings unites to reproduce, the mixture of the genes of each one will result in a new one being that will carry a larger diversity of genes than each one of its parents. The new combination can generate a being less capable that it will tend to disappear or a more able to survive being. It is known that small isolated human communities that only reproduce among them tend to degenerate. Or, saying in another way, as larger the diversity of the genes that they combine greater will be the probability that are produced more capable being to survive, more perfect therefore.

        Nations or ethnic anything is than relatively big isolated communities that almost only reproduce to each other. It is easy to conclude that the great human community would only have to gain being abolished the barriers of nations, ethnic or religions.

        How much white parents' unnecessary suffering when its dear daughter marries a black, when a dear Jewish son marries with a Catholic girl, when the Protestant American white millionaire's dear daughter marries a poor Hispanic taxi driver or the opposite.

        So it could be the best thing to be invaded by a neighboring country...

        Let us see a concrete case to illustrate. Israel. People today that believe that are descending of a nomadic people there are thousands of years ago it lived in the area known as Palestine side by side with another different people from the same area. United by the common faith in an only god different from the others that believed in multiple gods. Expelled of the origin territories they were spread by the world and by the religious faith they gave to themselves the name of Jews. They acquired and they maintained for hundreds of years the faith of being Jewish, different from the rest of the world, nothing else than an identity item. Constantly oppressed by those identified as no-Jews, mainly after the holocaust by the Nazi, they started to believe that not more they would be oppressed if they had an own territory where to live. They fought and finally in the forties they got that UN granted them the right of they constitute a nation in that territory where those that believed to be its ancestral ones lived. But that area continued inhabited by Arab people that are believed descending of the old people that inhabited those territories. It had origin a war among Arabs and Jews that it lasts long even today.

        How much stupid faith do you notice it is contained in what I said?

        I think to notice but the main is to believe that it can "be" Jewish or Arabic.

        Imagine now if in that territory that we know as Israel, starting from certain moment, as in a magic pass, each inhabitant stopped seeing him as Jew or Arab, Christian or any other thing regarding that aspect, also disappearing all and any reference that could remind the faith in those things and each one passed seeing himself just as a human being inhabitant of that territory. What would happen?

        It is impossibility but all the divergences would disappear.

        Not all, just the war between Arabs and Jews. The divergences motivated by social, economic, patrimonial differences or politics would continue as before.

        The millennial hate between Arabs and Jews generated by the faith of having an Arab or a Jewish identity would disappear. Just a stupid faith that produces slaughters and discrimination. The faith that it can "be" Arab or Jew.

        Somebody that believes to be Jewish that by chance to hear what we are speaking certainly will say: how can I stop being Jewish, I am a Jew, my parents, my grandparents and my children are Jewish? Somebody that is considered an Arabic will say the same thing, so much as somebody that is considered American, Japanese, German, political, Christian, Muslim, doctor, father, mother, politician, environmentalist or certain soccer team's fan. Nothing else than indicative labels of faiths, as labels that indicate that a bottle contains cider or Coca-Cola.

        We return to that primitive fear: what will I become if leave of being Jewish or Arabic? Actually, only for that aspect, a much more perfect and capable human being, because became free of a prejudice that causes countless problems.

        See, Manuel, where we came to stop, we began with your doubts in making an interior transformation and we ended up speaking about Arabs and Jews.

        It is true, Ruth, but like you easily can observe, up to now we only approached the rational aspects of the problem. We only spoke about things that they can be thought, analyzed and justified. The rational encounter that I spoke previously. There is a great amount of things that I consider irrational that could influence largely the human life, which didn't speak or we passed up to now for high and that need to be considered.

        Don't say? What things are these?

        They are inexplicable phenomenons in general not accepted as true. considered fantasies of moonstruck, despised, shortly studied or simply unknown. I refer to phenomenon’s related to parapsychology, to called miracles, to called occult practices, to called exotic medicines or alternatives and a wide range of things that the scientific thought doesn't get to digest.

        They are usually been seen in a similar way to that stupid polemic on matter and spirit. There are countless examples that illustrate the way, mainly in labeled scientific means, as those phenomenons are seen and that result in sterile polemics, destruction and opportunity loss of obtaining something useful for humanity.

        Let us look superficially at some of them.

        People that accomplish cures through spiritual operations do exist. An example is Ze Arigo. He became worldwide famous in certain circles, for making surgeries even of cancer removal, manipulating a penknife, without anesthesia, asepsis or great bleeding. In seconds certain people were said cured. He explained that received a German doctor's spirit, doctor Fritz spirit. There are many other that make similar things.

        What do say in scientific means when they come across on cases of that type?

        Impostor, quack that explores ignorant people's beliefs. Some curious doctor could approach and really verifying some cures, he would say: actually there is not how to as explain... And it would stop there. Nothing else would happen.

        How much do you know they spend the great pharmaceutical laboratories in the research of medicines?

        I can’t imagine.

        Do imagine then, what would happen if the president of United States ordered to remove 10% of the worn-out total for the armed forces to apply in researches to discover how they are made the cures by those healers?

        Well, Manuel, that is an absurdity.

        The reaction of the laboratories would be so great that would ask the president's impeachment. I will show you a case that will seem more absurd.

        In religious means some cured people of cancer cases happens through prayer. The same thing would happen if it were proposed the research that I mentioned, with an added difficulty, a great reaction of the religious means. These certainly would say, it is sin, they want to manipulate God, it is God's Will, the mysteries of God are unfathomable, it is a sacrilege, etc.

        Actually there is not absurdity any. Our prejudices make to see in these ways. They are just facts, we don't know if they are true or not, which deserve to be studied as any other facts that happen in the nature. To relegate them to the forgetfulness with scorn because so claimed scientific knowledge are unable to explain or because they hurt sacred considered faiths it is pure stupidity.

        Almost nobody thinks like this.

        By that I say that are pure stupidity. We only see what we want to see. We only hear what we want to hear. We only say what others want to hear. We reject everything that can affect the image that we do of ourselves, or the image that we think the others do of us, which is to say our supposed and dear identity.

        See how it is powerful that fact of we need "to be" some thing, to possess an identity. I have just said, "we are largely stupid". The immense majority, hearing something similar will say, "I am not stupid". Perhaps one or another says, "it is true, I am stupid ". What made both except to accept or to confirm a constituent item of its identities? Nobody "is" stupid or not stupid, all we can "to act " or "to speak" in a way seemingly stupid or not. After all who can judge if it is stupidity or not? Is it not another stupidity to want to judge? The problem is that when we notice ourselves making nonsense’s we say: "I am stupid", we join to our identity the characteristic of being stupid. And what is worse, we depreciate ourselves, we give a smaller value to ourselves. For the use of reason we make a judgement and we impose ourselves a classification. We use exclusively our left hemisphere, the millennial masculine orientation, which is marvelous to classify, to order, to create hierarchies. We make the same thing when we see somebody showing that commonly it is afraid, we classify him as "fearsome", we attribute to him an identity, it is a fearsome one. The fear, as so many other, it is just a human feeling, nothing else; we can not know if it is good or bad, it is just a feeling, an emotion. It is like this that they are born the prejudices. Our rational left hemisphere establishes, for example: it was taught me that who has a black skin it is an inferior person to that who has a white skin, I have a white skin, that guy there has a black skin, therefore, he is inferior to me or I am superior to him.

        That is a sad truth, Manuel. Even if later on we are taught that that is not true, that the color of the skin doesn't indicate larger or smaller value among the human beings, when it was we taught that the color of the skin has a meaning of value, the teaching it came accompanied of a great amount of negative feelings that are deeply taken root in our unconscious. Derived feelings from: they are wild, primitive, violent, they smell badly, it cannot trust them, they are dissembling, they are of a sub-race, they are mentally faulty, they are inferior beings, stand back of them, to any hour they will cause you many problems. In Brazil it is said: "when they don't shit in the entrance they shit in the exit", wanting to say that even if at the beginning they seem to be good people, be forewarned because further on they will bring you some problem.

        Yes it is a sad truth, Ruth, because even a white that rationally believes not to have racial prejudices, when running across with a black, he is strongly impelled by the emotional contents deeply anchored in its unconscious, which dictate its behavior and it is put upon to its rational contents. That it is not easy to end the prejudices.

        I do not want to justify white’s behavior, which fact it is not excuse any for the existence of the discrimination by prejudices. Say, well, in prisons the blacks are the immense majority! Who is the direct responsible person for that situation except the white that for centuries it has oppressed the black and does continue oppressing, in spite of the laws against discrimination? Simply because he joined to its identity that "is" superior.

        How much suffering because one our far ancestral took possession of a club and could say, I am stronger because I have this club and by this I have power to force you to do what I want.

        As always we strayed of the subject.

        You spoke in cure by the prayer. How is it possible to study the cure through the prayer? I don't think it is possible.

        I think to be perfectly possible. It is enough that free us of certain prejudices.

        We accept peacefully that the cure of certain diseases can be made through medicines. How does it arrive to that? Studying, analyzing, trying. There is a method that guides, the scientific method.

        A scientist discovers that certain drug can cure certain disease. Its discovery is observation fruit, intuition or maybe. An example went to penicillin, somebody that worked with cultures in laboratory he observed that when it appeared certain type of mold, certain bacteria’s they were died. He studied the action of the mold and he ended up discovering a drug that cured infections for bacilli. He tried the drug in animals, later in man and they were born the antibiotics. It was largely studied the action of those drugs, its use was spread and it diversified. Lamentably today it was also discovered that in reaction to the drugs the own bacillus’s became stronger and them no longer healthy so efficient. Plus indications than I don’t get tired of repeating. We only know how to fight, to combat, and to destroy for solving problems and that attitude only drives to the invigoration of the weakest, but this doesn't interest here.

        What means it is that the cure by the prayer deserves to be studied in the same way. But not even it is tried. If somebody dares to do a proposal in that direction a mountain of objections it will be done.

        A scientist will say: to cure by prayer? Fanatic's illusion from who believe in God's action, God don't exists, it is invention of ignorant fools. At the most some cures without importance motivated by self-suggestion. And he simply rejects at least to think in the subject. He could at least to try to discover what in fact happens in a cure said by self-suggestion. After all there was some result of little duration.

        A religious person will say: to cure by prayer? An unquestionable truth of faith, it is sacrilege to want to sound the designs of God studying its infinite mercy as we dissect mice’s to verify the action of drugs! It is heresy; it is a sin at least to think in this possibility. It is offense to the sacred person of God.

        Other objections would be of the type: researches cost money, who will invest in a crazy thing like that? How to study a thing that is processed inside the people, which it doesn't feel, it doesn't see, it cannot measure by instruments?

        Each one is valid objection but it persists an unquestionable fact: people are cured of diseases for the prayer. What I consider stupid it is to park before a fact, which until it cannot be true and to discard the possibility to study deeply with deprived of any real value arguments.

        Besides, to think like this is to think as our ancestral ones thought. There is little time behind it was said that the man could never fly, if God wanted the man to fly he would have created him with wings. Who would at that time imagine that we could attend a soccer game accomplished at great distance comfortably installed in our favorite armchair into our house?

        Think of the marvel that would be the possibility of the cure of diseases for something similar to cure for the prayer that could be accomplished by anyone independent of this to be considered scientist, religious person, atheist, doctor, therapist or what else it wants! A practice derived of researches on the study of the mechanism that possibly the cures could be processed. Independent of faith or faith if the cure is work of God or not. Important it is that the cure is done, how to explain it is secondary problem.

        Why not to destine 10% of the worn-out budget in armed forces, that only produce deaths and destruction, to deeply study the cure of diseases by prayer?

        I already know, Manuel, because we are stupid, is it not?

        No. Because we think stupidly. We think supported in our prejudices, we think under the command of our prejudices that constitute our illusory identities.

        If I believe to be a religious person, because I joined to my identity the fact of being religious, for having been taught and learned well to represent the religious person role put under an obligation to think like a religious person it should think. The same thing if I believe to be a scientist or other thing any.

        I don't feel capable to evaluate or to judge what you say, Manuel, but, even if that is true, what can be done? How could it be in another way? You said that only to know it is good for anything. We only know to think in that way...

        That is the crucial problem. What impedes us of solving it is that fear that we don’t know what come to be if we change. We pass the whole life trying to discover what we are or trying to confirm what we think to be.

        What does impel a mountaineer to take a risk of its life in the attempt of climbing the Himalayas? On a side he wants to be known by the others for being a capable and courageous person, to leave of being a nobody to become a somebody. Of the other he wants to join to its identity something that will tell him: I am capable and courageous. If he already feels capable and courageous, the fact will confirm what thinks of himself, if not, he will start to believe that is truly capable and courageous. And what is worse, he will pass feeling better than many that were not capable to accomplish what he accomplished.

        In a certain way he accepts to born again challenge. With its fact he made who was nobody to die and he made somebody to be born.

        That is the challenge kind that to any moment all we accept, not in climbing Himalayas but even in the most insignificant things as opening a can of sardine in the possible better way so that the others see that we are an expert in that task or to inflate our ego seeing how much skilled we are.

        We are quite resolved to accept challenges that ennoble the image that we do of ourselves, but we hesitated in accepting the challenge of looking at for our interior with limpid and exempted of prejudices eyes. We are afraid of what there we can find. The great fear is to discover that we are not that marvel we believe to be or that great garbage that we thought to be and we don't want to be revealed.

        The solution is very simple and obvious but we refuse to see: it is false our need of "to be" any thing. After all is it not enough "to be" just human beings? Where does that need come from of we think that is necessary "to be" besides something? An enough privilege is not to have been born? How many didn't have that privilege?

        How marvelous it would be, Ruth, if I could say: I am just Manuel favored to live the adventure of life together with wonderful companions the same to myself, without the minimum concern in seeing me better or worse than anyone! Free, totally free from those incomprehensible pulses of needing to be better than the other ones or of being paralyzed when noticing me worse than the other ones.

        I feel that what you say can be true but I still believe that cannot be done. Nobody wants to change; we want that the others change, but not us.

        That is the problem, we need the other ones but we don't want to admit. Of very a little it will advance if we change and the other ones not, we will become a strange body with tendency to be rejected. Whole humanity's complete and radical change can only drive to a better world, in spite of the individual change to be greatly beneficial for who accomplishes it to the point of that possible rejection not to inconvenience a lot.

        I will give you other example how certain phenomenon’s they are handled in an inadequate way. The para-psychological phenomenons for example.

        Certain people are capable to visualize scenes of events that were given with other person there are many years without there was the minimum possibility of they have known previously about the event. In Christian means they give to that the name of talent of science. They believe that is a gift of God to certain people. In parapsychology it is something linked to telepathy. The fact demonstrates, for the ones that believe in it, that there is a communication among the human beings different from the well-known communication.

        The religious persons don't cogitate of deepening a lot the subject. They accept that is a gift of God for the construction of the Church and they are thereabout. A lot of cures happen as consequence and that are also accepted with certain naturalness as will of God.

        An example to illustrate. A group of people habituated to pray together. To the end of certain time of prayers, soft songs, meditations and readings most without giving notice gets to reach and to stay in an altered state of conscience of a lot of peace and peacefulness. At that time, somebody that possesses the talent of science will notice a scene where it sees a child being beaten by the father because she robbed a case of the school colleague. He will notice in the child a feeling that he is being unjust to him, he didn't rob, the colleague gave it as a gift. The father doesn't want to hear. There is hate in relation to the father. Who "saw" the scene reveals it to the group. A youth gets up in weeping and he says that that happened to him, now he knows why he doesn't go well with its father. The whole group prays so that God that everybody loves it lights up so he can forgive its father that was so unjust with him. Its hate for the father will become soft and the relationship will improve. The disappearance of the hate that carried corresponds to a true cure.

        Some spiritualist mediums are capable of something similar. In an altered state of conscience they touch a person and they notice events of its life commonly ignored by him own. The facts are also used for cure.

        Parapsychology in the desire of to be recognized by the scientific ways it studies similar phenomenon’s generally called telepathy. They get lost in the labyrinths of they need to prove by scientific methods that telepathy is possible. The objections to the accuracy of the used methods are so much that end up disabling its confirmation.

        As they need a "sensitive" for its experiments and theses not always are honest or don't know why they make certain things, everything almost always ends in doubtful statistics and everything ends up stopping thereabout.

        I ask: why Christians, spiritualists and parapsychologists are not given hands and without worrying on what they believe to be, together they don't study those phenomenon’s? What sees usually are groups that study the same type of phenomenon’s but not even they admit the possibility that cannot to be the same type of phenomenon seen in different ways.

        But I know that Christian parapychologists do exist, Manuel.

        Even those separate telepathy from the talent of science as different things.

        What wants to stand out it is that groups isolated by its faiths don't get results that could be useful for humanity for the simple fact of maintaining isolated by force of its faiths. Instead of worrying with universal welfare that would result if what they know it was shared, they worry fundamentally in doing other people share its faiths.

        Christians and spiritualists diverge to each other and they seek new followers. Parapsychologists diverge of both and they want to convince the scientists that they are right.

        All those phenomenon’s, if deeply studied they could make universally effective the cure by prayer, which would need to receive other name due to the prejudices that the word prayer produces before anything else.

        Any non-religious person twists the nose when hearing to speak in cure prayer, but it believes piously that "to support" its favorite soccer team will contribute to its victory. It is unable to notice that what does it can be a type of prayer.

        When a person speaks and another understands what it says, there is a communication through the speech. The sounds that we produce exercise a kind of influence in other's brain; there it is registered what spoke. Would not there be some kind of communication when we just thought? We could emit some kind of wave capable of being captured by the other, as a radio station it emits waves that are captured by apparel of radio. The fact we have not still been capable to invent an apparel that can check the existence of a communication as that doesn't mean that it cannot exist.

        It is a quite common fact child to know who played the bell or who is phoning before to know whom it is. We call coincidence to this...

        There are other inexplicable considered phenomenon’s that they could bring unimaginable benefits to humanity that are considered fantasies of unbalanced people or simply discarded, it is not believed that can happen.

        One of them is levitation. I found in Internet a person, which doesn't seem to be an unbalanced mental one, which teaches to levitate as if he taught a food recipe. For him levitation is seen of as natural as the rain or the wind.

        There is a Catholic saint, Teresa of Avila that rose of the soil during the mass without she could avoid and she asked to the nuns that held her because she didn't feel well being target of the attentions.

        There was in Italy a monk, Joseph of Cupertino, that was nicknamed "the flying priest" for the flights that he accomplished commonly in the monastery, being able to carry a companion in its flights.

        Hallucinations of fanatic? I don't know, I never saw nobody levitate, but I believe that episodes as those deserve to be deeply studied not to be proven if that it is true or not, what would take to sterile discussions that they park for fatigue, but because that could take to great discoveries that could be useful for humanity.

        How, Manuel?

        If a human being just gets truly to defraud the untouchable gravity law, million can make it. We would not need vehicles more to go from a place to other, perhaps we got until transporting loads at great distances without need of vehicles.

        Now, Manuel, this is fantasy of fiction books...

        It can be, what I want to enhance it is the stupid attitude that we took before those reports. A scientist will say: it is impossible, the gravitation force is an unalterable truth, it is a natural law. A religious person will say: the mysteries of God are unfathomable. And everybody parks and they will deal over things that believe more useful.

        How did we face generally what they call miracles? In the same way. The religious persons say: to God everything is possible. The scientists say: the fact we don't know how to explain it doesn't mean that there is the action of God. And both are thereabout, they have more important problems to be devoted.

        An example. Some people in certain occasions showed Christ's wounds in its bodies. On a side, they are miracles, on other, they are psychosomatic reactions and nothing else happens. Why not to research in depth? At least we could find a way to quickly cure some wound since it could be a psychosomatic reaction. It would be enough to invert the process.

        Other examples. People that live during years without eating any kind of food. People that make the called astral trip. People that seem to be at the same time in two distant places. People that tell in detail events that didn't still take place, the premonition. People that see distant scenes. People that see the aura in colors and interpret some mental state. People whose bodies after death are not decomposed, as it is natural, but directly they become ashes.

        It is true, Manuel, the common attitude is not to believe that it can happen or the hope that some day can be explained, but I think that nobody worries if those things can have some practical usefulness that can be extended to whole humanity. At the most they study the possibility to influence the neighbor's minds for the power that can bring for best to dominate him.

        What would you think if I told you that since some years a methodology exists daily used by doctors and psychologists capable to make the cure of physical diseases that the traditional medicine doesn't cure and that does in two or three weeks what traditional psychotherapies they don't get in years and years of treatment?

        My first thought is that you should be deceived. If something like that exists there is already some years it should be known thoroughly and diffused by the whole world.

        There it is where you are who is deceived. That exists, it is as real and true as somebody to be reading what is written in this precise moment.

        It cannot be Manuel. Why then that method is not known?

        Again I tell you, due to the monumental human stupidity.

        How?

        I can enumerate a series of reasons, each one of them with its own value of stupidity.

        Any person that it become aware of the existence of a such extraordinary method of cure, be him a cancer carrier or of a simple anxiety, it rejects the possibility of being cured by such reasons as: I don't have time to spend three weeks in treatment, I don't have money, I heard to speak that they believe in God, it can be Spiritualism, I won't place myself in not very known people's hands, I don't believe in its effectiveness for being not very disclosed, my doctor or therapist never heard to speak in something similar, if it is not known it should not have value any, I am normal and I don't need any therapy, etc.

        In fact, it is only fear. The fear that produces stupidity.

        In spite of today to be fashion to believe that homosexuality is not a disease, in three weeks a homosexual will leave of this to be labeled if he wants. This aspect only would be enough to eliminate a great amount of sufferings and problems.

        The method, besides everything, opens an immense fan of possibilities for the study in depth of the origin and development of all and any disease or disturbance that hurts humanity where the own patients collaborate with pertinent information. It makes possible the research of diseases for a therapist-patient interaction, where it would be possible to use the whole paraphernalia of existent medical apparels not for diagnoses but to check the elimination of the disease.

        It is hard to believe. Manuel.

        Add to those difficulties the linked to the areas of health professionals' reaction. What will think a psychoanalyst or a doctor when verifying that its services can stop being necessary before such a more efficient therapy? Or the president of a multinational of pharmaceutical products whose company can become useless? Or the owners of clinics, hospitals and pharmacies that can hardly be more necessary?

        Of course they will be the first ones to depreciate the method. They will find millions of arguments.

        Do tell me, Manuel, does that really exist or is its an invention?

        Of course it exists. It is something in daily and continuous operation. True clinics exist; some few thousands of people had the necessary courage to submit to the therapy with wonderful results. The exceptions are in worthless number.

        How is that method? What is made in those clinics?

        Actually the base of the method is very simple, perhaps that is the main reason of its rejection. We have difficulty of believing in simple things, we believed more in complicated things that we cannot understand as complex exams, complicated surgeries, expensive medicines, sophisticated apparels, etc. we don't believe that simple things can solve great problems.

        The main foundation in that is based the treatment it is a simple way to turn conscious the contents of the unconscious.

        Freud went the pioneer to understand the enormous force of the unconscious contents of our minds, Jung it confirmed and it enlarged the importance of the contents of the unconscious as responsible for a series of disturbances that suffers humanity. Its followers' work enlarged those pioneers' knowledge to the point of to settle down a range of psychoanalytic schools of several orientations that are devoted in universal ambit to the treatment of psychological disturbances of whole type generated by the actions of the unconscious. The own psychiatry also benefited of that knowledge.

        It is undeniable the contribution that those two branches of medicine gave and they continue to give for humanity's health. But always they stop in an almost unsurpassable difficulty, the direct access and conscious to the unconscious, which is the main source of psychological disturbances that can produce somatic disturbance and physical diseases, besides the high cost and the delay.

        They developed varied techniques so that the unconscious contents of the psyche are revealed but they always appear impregnated of symbolism that need to be interpreted by the therapists. The patient is like this in the dependence of the therapist's ability in interpreting them.

        How is it that simple thing that it takes to access the unconscious? Is it like to click the mouse and to open a program?

        Don't exaggerate. To see how simple it is the mechanism that allows the conscious direct access to the unconscious it is necessary before to have a general idea on how what we call conscience works. The conscience is a capacity that superior animals possess and that man developed at quite high levels through its evolution. In a simple way it is the capacity that we have to take knowledge of something that is happening, we have science of something and we are capable to store images of the event and to remind them further on. Our level of conscience also varies. We can stay extremely attentive and concentrated or until half turned off without almost noticing what may be happening. The act of sleeping is a gradual transition from full conscience level to total shut off of the conscience. The level of conscience may be translated in numbers through apparels that measure certain type of waves emitted by the brain in each level.

        We can also make to vary our level of conscience to our will for simple techniques or through the help of third and by artificial means. We can allow that a person able to hypnotize modifies our level of conscience using appropriate techniques as well as we can self-hypnotize. I used the analogy with the hypnosis to illustrate but the alteration of conscience in our case nothing has there to be with hypnosis, it is processed in state of full and common conscience.

        When we dream sleeping, coming images from the unconscious are transferred to the conscience that opens up in the moment we woke up and certain unconscious contents are revealed like this. It is the way used by the psychoanalysis to access certain parts of the unconscious. The problem is that those contents appear under form of symbols that need to be interpreted and we don't know how or why it appears.

        The important fact is that it was discovered that in a certain level of conscience, which varies of person to person, it is possible to reach areas of the unconscious where all the events of our life are stored since the moment when we were conceived and even memories that come from our ancestral ones. Not under the form of symbols as in the dreams but for the direct vision of real scenes registered as if they went for a television camera with sounds and colors, added of all concerning feelings. It is as dreaming awake but the area of the brain that we play is not that where the dreams are processed when we are sleeping but an area where all our experiences are stored since the moment when it gave our own conception.

        It is not easy to believe that this is possible, Manuel, when we know that even Freud, Jung or its prominent successors got to arrive to that.

        Do you know the reason?

        I don't imagine.

        First, who discovered it is a woman; prejudice with woman is enormous. Second, she is not psychoanalyst or psychiatrist, but only a psychologist, how anybody that believes to be owner of unconscious problems it can admit that anybody out of their means can make something that they were never capable to do? Third, she is original of a sub-developed country of the third world; can something good come from Galilee? Fourth, she is Christian, she believes in God.

        Is it enough or do you need more?

        It is enough, but why don't you say her name, how to have access to its works and where may she be found?

        Due to a stupid selfish need of mine. I feel a personal need to evaluate up till where it goes human stupidity. As I intend to disclose what we are speaking, I want to know the effect produced in the people that read it. As I have been observing that there is a certain aversion when I refer to those subjects, I want to know why exactly it happens, perhaps to find a better way of disclosing something that I believe of immense value for humanity and that seems to be stupidly rejected equally by stupid reasons. Of course I will have the maximum possible zeal to collaborate with who may be interested and it cannot find other means of having access to something so wonderful.

        Certain, Manuel, but you didn't still say how it is made the access to the unconscious and I also want you explain very well to me that history of seeing scenes since the moment of the conception. The specialists of the subject are unanimous in saying that a child's brain in gestation before 3 or 4 months of gestation it cannot notice and to register events. Only when very advanced the gestation the baby becomes capable to react to certain incentives and even so in a very precarious way.

        On this it is where you are completely deceived. This is another fact that shows very well our widespread stupidity in not accepting facts that ours idolized science doesn't get to explain because they don't assist to its dogmas and theories solidly established. In a few time I will come back to this fascinating theme.

        It is learned to access the unconscious by training, following simple rules and also using some simple artifices. Twice a day, in half dozen of followed days. A comfortable armchair, silence, physical and mental relaxing and a dive in fascinating adventures in our interior world, during at the most one hour for session. Who already had experiences of deep meditation, yoga, Mental Control, Holotropic breathing or similar things will have more easiness to try the experience alone. The artifices are a cassette tape or CD recording, a small electronic generator of pulses and the wise person.

        Wise person?

        The wise person is an illustration that we invent; an imaginary person mentally created that knows all the contents of our unconscious. We order him to reveal us what we want to know and he reveals us because he knows every second of our interior and external life. It is just an artifice to facilitate things but it is indispensable.

        The recording, with hearing phones, contains a musical bottom and instructions that guide and favor the relaxing and the meditation.

        The generator of pulses is a small electronic device that it emits pulses of low frequency and low intensity, through electrodes in the nape and in the forehead. A lot of people are terrified and worried with what it can happen when doing to pass an electric current for the brain, in spite of being imperceptible it is by itself something extremely beneficial, so much that is used in many countries in the treatment of a lot of diseases, mainly in seniors. In our case it is just an assistant to accelerate and to facilitate the relaxing and to place us in access conditions to the unconscious.

        In the therapy that I mentioned, after the training with the recording and the device of pulses, 4 or 5 sessions are accomplished where the relaxing is made on a vibratory bed with the aid of a therapist. It is a kind of therapy through symbolic images.

        Then it is made the therapy properly said with the aid of a well-trained professional in that type of treatment. 10 or 12 sessions in followed days they are enough for the cure of most disturbances. When already able to relax and to maintain conscious contact with its unconscious the patient it is guided by the therapist walking through its existences that had beginning in the moment of its conception. He is limited to make questions without to interfere or to induce the patient.

        I am a little confused, Manuel, you showed how it is the therapy and you spoke in doing some independently thing. How is this?

        I will clear up, Ruth. This that I described briefly is the psychological therapy. The therapists are psychologists that underwent the treatment previously and later on they become professionals able to accomplish the therapy on patients. Every range of problems and psychological disturbances are eliminated by the search of the causes that it gave them origin and that are located mainly on close moments to the conception and during gestation and birth.

        There is a second group of therapists, in general medical doctors, which are trained like the psychologists, but that are devoted to the cure of physical diseases. They also use the same techniques, they passed for the same previous treatment, they can discover the origins of psychosomatic and hereditary diseases and they can accomplish wider therapies with the patients' full collaboration.

        When I referred to do the alone therapy, my intention was not to suggest that it tries to do what those professionals do, but to learn to access the own unconscious and there to discover the causes of a lot of thing that it impedes to live a fuller and significant life. Many traumas can be eliminated.

        That, I believe, it is one of a lot of possibilities that open up starting from the access method to the unconscious. It is simple and it is within reach of anyone, it is enough to want. I believe to be extremely beneficial for called normal people that don't want or they cannot undergo the therapy.

        Is it dangerous? I always hear to speak that to play the unconscious it can be dangerous, they can appear terrifying and primitive things with which we won't know how to deal.

        No way. That method locates and accesses a precise area of our unconscious, exactly where it meets the memory of the events directly related with what we experienced and we lived about in every instant from the moments of our conception to the current life. Some of those events can have been traumatic becoming cause of practically all the disturbances that can be developed later on.

        I would like to have an example.

        There are an immense number of them. I will talk about a quite common one that frequently happens to the patients in therapy

        A person traveling by scenes that it lived attends in details the moment when its mother communicates to its father that she is pregnant. It sees its parents with clearness, it hears and it understands perfectly what they speak and plus, it has full knowledge of what they feel. It may notice, for example that they are very thwarted, they don't want children. They discuss and they conclude that an abortion will be necessary, they decide that an abortion will be made.

        The person ends that its parents do not want him, they don't want me, they don't love me, I mean nothing for them, I have no value for them, I have no value. Aware than it noticed, it felt and it ended, it will make a decision, among many possible it can decide for example: I will be a faulty person, full of hate, nobody will like me, I will cause great problems to them. She can create one or several sentences that will dictate its future behavior. Depending on the event, it can decide and it will really be capable, for example, of unchaining schizophrenia at 15 years of age or a cancer at 50 years.

        On those moments certainly the therapist will ask: they decided to do an abortion, how are you here now? Ask the wise person. The person certainly will find a scene where its parents move of idea and starting from there the cure of the effects of the trauma can be eliminated, to the point of to create new sentences like: yes, they really love me, I will be perfect and kind.

        I can believe, Manuel, this method can be really useful, but in spite of everything you said, I don't get to understand reason psychologists and psychoanalysts don't accept that method that seems to be so efficient in the cure of psychic evils.

        Some few ones do accept. I think that the fundamental reason is that same idiotic fear of loss of identity that I referred.

        Imagine a good and competent psychologist, psychoanalyst or even a psychiatrist. He dedicated an immense effort during all its life to become capable and competent in its profession. He acquired a wide range of knowledge and experience in treating its patients' problems with success. In that point of its career he thinks like this: I became a great professional, I "am" a great success professional, instead of thinking like this: I "am" the same human being that I always went but "I acquired" a great experience that enables me to treat my patients with success.

        This professional, when running across with the proposed method, even if he gets to notice its enormous possibilities, he will be taken to reject it immediately. He thinks that to accept he will have to throw in the garbage everything that learned with so much effort and automatically he will have to leave of "being" what it believes "to be". A small problem of pride and self-sufficiency. Actually, its great experience could be added to the proposed method and its professional competence would be vastly increased.

        I agree, Manuel, but I am still arrested to that problem of seeing events of the time of conception. I don't get to understand how that may happen.

        This is a very delicate subject because it collides directly with our faiths and it is narrowly linked to the problems of "being".

        There is an unquestionable fact. Every one that undergoes the therapy, without exception, it sees, it notices, it feels and it participates in events that were developed in the time when the own conception was processed.

        This simple fact can generate several rejection attitudes. One will say, this is hypnotic regression, it has there to be with last lives, reincarnation, I am Christian, I cannot believe in those things, they are fantasies of unbalanced, it is at least sin to think in this. Another will say, it is impossible, still neither a brain exists to notice things, it is some form of collective illusion. Other still, it is Spiritualism’ thing, God free me.

        Being admitted that a person accepts the fact, certainly it will ask: who is that sees? If it didn't still take place the union of spermatozoon and ovum, where does it come from and what is that somebody that sees?

        The obvious answer of somebody that believes in God and in spirit it is that that somebody is its own spirit, its spiritual dimension, its soul that arrived to join to the body that will be formed and there won't be larger problems.

        How will it be that fact before an atheist or a materialist? He will probably say: he is somewhere the own person that of some form finds the registration of those events. Its parents' brains in some way can have been registering those events and later on its own brain can have been capturing them and registered some place of its own brain.

        It seems very reasonable, Manuel.

        It seems, but there are facts that thwart that reasoning. How could the parents' brains capture personal existences only possible by a being that for them it doesn't still exist? That hypothetical being somehow had experiences only possible to him own. For example, he can see himself as a precise point in space, out of its parents, from where he observes them. No existence of the parents can capture that fact, since for them that being it doesn't exist. He feels things that could be felt only by him own, as a being truly independent of the parents that in fact do exist as unique and concrete.

        They also have countless reports, of sources different from that therapy, of mothers and parents that had children's visions wanting to be born months and until years before they are conceived...

        Do we have then, Manuel, to accept that all we possess a spiritual dimension, is it not?

        Not necessarily. The problem exists because we insist on thinking in matter and spirit as different or antagonistic things.

        And they are not?

        See well. The people that put on themselves the materialists' label, believe that matter or energy are only possible, they exclude the possibility of spirit and they come across insoluble problems or that don't get to explain. Actually they live its lives full of doubts. Those labeled spiritualists, they believe in another things, but equally they live its lives full of doubts.

        And what is really worse, they are always fighting. They are not given notice that that is just the result of the division between its cerebral hemispheres, its masculine and feminine aspects in eternal fight that turns them blind.

        Why not to think, for example that the all matter and energy that it composes the Universe "is" a spirit form? There is only a universal spirit that we notice in several ways and under different aspects. I am not affirming that it is like this, wanting to establish a new dogma. It is just other possibility to see things.

        All this would be God, then? Would all this be God?

        No, Ruth, God could "be" somebody that created all this, all this could just "be" its body.

Armando Vettorazzo

August 99

| Home | The True Freeedom (1st chapter) | Gospel for the Third Millennium (2nd chapter) | Livin Roles (3rd chapter) |