Aina: The quest for unity

Published 25.03.2024 | By Йосиф

Post Views: 4

Aina: The quest for unity

Channeling: architect

Conversation with presenter Aina.

C: Let’s continue. Very different, dissimilar souls are developing on Earth. What opportunities do you see for combining them? I understand that the unity of our civilization is still far away. But how can at least a certain rapprochement between people be achieved?

A.: Any ordered structure consists of certain elements. And how skillfully these elements are combined directly affects the stability of the created structure. With unsuccessful configurations of elements, the structures crumble, with successful ones, the structures are able to remain strong for a long time and even withstand high loads.

A simple example: the most stable table is one with four legs and a horizontal surface. If there are fewer legs, it will wobble. If its surface is at an angle, dishes may slide off it and fall to the floor.

Creating stable configurations of living structures is an art. Think about how complex the human body is, how much everything is taken into account in order to maintain its integrity and vitality, despite the abundance of daily stress and stress.

The same is true with society, from small groups to nations and the entire civilization as a whole – creating stable configurations of social structures so that they are something integral is an incredibly difficult task. Therefore, the assembly of a destructive civilization into unity takes many Cycles; in your time, tens of thousands of years may pass.

There are real examples of civilizations living in unity that required 100-120 point Cycles to assemble. Based on the fact that one standard point Cycle lasts 2356 years, you can roughly understand what time periods we are talking about. Although the final results of these assemblies are no longer essentially civilizations, they have transformed into multi-dimensional composite deities.

But let’s return to earthly civilization. Let’s say there is a family built on such a priority as mutual assistance. As long as family members help each other, they stay together. But this priority also has negative sides. Let’s say one of the family members lay down on the sofa and said: “I’m tired of everything, I don’t go to work anymore.” Based on the principle of mutual assistance, the rest of the family members will feed and support him as long as needed, but the burden on the family budget and the psychological stress of these people will increase.

If suddenly another relative stops earning money for some reason, the prospects for the family’s survival and its integrity may even be in question. Thus, the configuration built on the basis of the key element “mutual assistance” shows its shortcomings in practice. A hidden weakness is revealed, leading, under certain unfavorable circumstances, to the destruction of the entire structure.

In such cases, many questions arise. For example, is it even worth saving a family where some are pulling the weight of others? Or can the strongest of its participants find a new partner, equally strong, and with him form a new integral structure? Let’s say they don’t have children, but they will have friends, like-minded people, and cohesion with neighboring units of society will already occur on the basis of a union of strong and independent people.

But in such a structure a hidden defect can also appear – the strong and independent can have serious disagreements on pressing issues, not wanting to give in to each other. Despite the fact that we called such a structure a “union of the strong,” it often turns out to be fragile and crumbles without much regret, since such people feel quite good on their own.

But let’s return to our first family. The next question we can ask: perhaps, to preserve this structure, we need to introduce another important element that will take part of the load on itself and increase overall stability?

In the wild, this additional element is found everywhere: healthy members of a herd or flock stick together and help each other survive, but when one of them gets sick or loses strength, he goes off to die alone. If an adult is not able to stand on its feet and get food for itself, it is not fed.

Bringing the weakest out of the structure is a principle that balances the basic principle of mutual assistance, which helps preserve the entire structure from destruction.

In some destructive civilizations, this principle is used in its original form: those who are not ready to feed themselves are guaranteed to die. Despite the harshness of such laws, these civilizations are tenacious, capable of accumulating their power and intellectual potential. The accumulation of intellectual potential is especially intensive in technologically developed societies, in which the concept of the social benefit of the individual has already significantly evolved. If in primitive communities the measure of social usefulness is a high ability for physical labor, then in technologically developed communities initially weaker individuals, fearing the prospect of death, direct their efforts on intellectual development in order to be useful to their society in a different way. Thus, they make their contribution and retain the right to receive a set of goods necessary for life.

On Earth, there are also similar ideas about natural selection and selection – this is eugenics, which after the defeat of Germany in World War II is still in disgrace.

It is clear that the two elements of social structure mentioned above lack something else of real vital importance. Yes, the structure on their basis is already stable and tenacious, but the natural desire of souls for empathy gives rise to many moral dilemmas. When someone you don’t know weakens, you can still come to terms with the fact that he is destined to die quickly. But when someone close to you weakens, not everyone is ready to sit on their hands. Considering that an individual dissatisfied with local customs has undergone intense natural selection, he may turn out to be very strong, smart and dangerous in order to be able to break the established order of things. Especially if he teams up with like-minded people who also disagree with the cruel laws of society.

As a result, riots are likely, which may end in victory for those who want to make their society more humane. And then it will be possible for such a civilization to transition to a fundamentally new round of less destructive development. Although there are high risks of reactionary sentiments and attempts to revive cruel laws that will drag society back.

If the victory of more humane sentiments never happens, such societies tend to degenerate in terms of any ethics and morality and turn into efficient meat-packing plants. The strong there feel almost like gods and enjoy life. But as they lose their strength, on the contrary, they begin to feel horror, because they understand that the moment will come when they will be processed so that other strong ones can live and enjoy life. In such societies, the contrast of two moods is clearly expressed: an incredible celebration of the life of the strong and incredible fear of the weak.

As you may have guessed, the third important element of the social structure, which significantly complements the first two, is humanism. There are many examples of humanism on Earth: a pension program, government assistance to the poor and disabled, charity, etc.

This element is most effectively implemented through completely voluntary contributions from the entire society, without any forced redistribution of other people’s income. Extensive educational work is being carried out, which encourages people to voluntarily give part of their income to the benefit of those in need. In the process, a mutual responsibility is created that works not much worse than the sullen tax office. It is the voluntariness of social contributions that provides a significant reduction in the destructiveness of energy exchange in society, in contrast to forced taxation, which is often perceived negatively by the conscious population as extortion.

But the excessive development of social assistance leads to the fact that it is taken for granted. Accordingly, a large layer of people who are able-bodied, but not working, appears, living through the redistribution of social savings. This situation is now observed in developed countries, when a person does not understand why he needs to work, because the amount of benefits and monthly salary do not differ too much. But this stage is also temporary, since it leads to stagnation in the processes of collective life, increases the burden on hardworking members of society and creates a large class of drones. At a certain stage, the unproductive class reaches a critical mass, and the integral social structure begins to crumble. Repulsion impulses begin to flow along it, with approximately equal strength from all participants in society: the productive part is dissatisfied with the fact that it is obliged to feed everyone; the unproductive part is dissatisfied with the infringement of their rights, since resources “out of thin air” turned out to be finite.

It is worth noting here that social savings, which are now being eaten up by the unproductive part of society in developed countries, are very important for other purposes – to make a series of necessary breakthroughs, after which it will be possible to say with complete confidence that science and technology are a great blessing. Serious investments in these areas would lead to people learning how to rejuvenate their bodies, prolong life, and treat fatal diseases. Dirty technogenesis, poisoning the planet, could transform and move into a safer phase for nature. In developed civilizations there is even a joke: dirty technologies are like a baby who does not control his bowel movements, but when technologies “grow up”, the desire to shit on oneself goes away.

Therefore, excessive expenditure of public savings on benefits, despite the appearance of the highest public good, is still a stagnant, regressive process. Lack of sufficient investment in medical research and new environmentally friendly technologies essentially prolongs the suffering of people themselves and the Earth as a whole. MehDicinity is not progressive enough to timely and effectively respond to new challenges associated with the weakening of human health. All ecosystems of the planet also suffer, since its dominant species cannot escape from the restrictions of dirty technogenesis, which are created artificially, due to the short-sighted redistribution of social wealth.

This is how we come to the need to introduce the fourth principle so that the integral social structure does not disintegrate and maintains a progressive vector of development: strict restrictions on the rights and social status of the unproductive but able-bodied population. In developed civilizations, which have gone further than earthlings in their research into social structure, this is realized through educational work, when each individual is explained that not making his contribution is shameful, that through his laziness he is leading society to impoverishment. And if such explanatory work is correctly supported by arguments of social justice, it is highly effective. Most members of society can be reached. Although a certain percentage of drones and asocial elements exist in more developed communities.

The fifth principle, which is necessary for maximum stability of the social structure, is the limitation of leadership. It is not so obvious, since it does not directly compensate for the negative aspects of the first four. But at a certain level of development, several civilizations that have many similarities with the earthly one have already arrived at it independently of each other.

No matter how strange it may sound: strong leaders can not only help society, but also harm it. Up to a certain level of development in civilization, such locomotives of progress are simply forced to appear, which alone, on charisma and personal talents, pull 20 cars with people, of which 2 cars are talented and productive people who assist the leader, and 18 cars are people of varying degrees of helplessness and inertia, who simply ride because the locomotive is taking them somewhere.

But over time, the souls that incarnate in civilizations develop completely self-sufficient minds, and the sharp inequality in society gradually decreases. It can be said that each individual already exhibits his own tangible strengths. There are more and more participants who are smart, talented, quite proactive, and voluntarily striving for new achievements.

As you know, the mind of the soul accumulates its achievements over many incarnations. Souls develop on Earth at least one, but more often several point Cycles. The average standard number of incarnations in a point Cycle is 22. In fact, it can be more or less, but this is the number that is statistically optimal to give at least some tangible result in the development of the soul. And over time, the number of developed souls embodied in civilization grows. More and more people are appearing with well-developed individuality, their own vision and valuable personal achievements. There is also a more pronounced division of souls in terms of specialization. From incarnation to incarnation, the soul itself chooses to develop in a certain area of knowledge, and this allows it to accumulate an increasing amount of complex information and reach new heights in its profession. For example, a child as early as three years old can tell his parents that when he grows up, he will build rockets that fly into space. Incarnate souls with an already chosen specialization look like this.

At a certain stage of population development, a significant number of individuals appear who can no longer be called passive passengers traveling somewhere behind a powerful locomotive. In such changed social conditions, strong leaders may already seem intrusive, capable of suppressing the less pronounced initiative of other participants in society, although it, on the contrary, needs encouragement. At this stage, effective teams of approximately equal like-minded people gather well. And such teams already need a leader with different qualities: tactful, unobtrusive, capable of moving only half a step to the forefront.

In contrast to the usual, charismatic leadership, a new understanding of functional leadership is developing – not the leader as a star, but the leader as a function. An important characteristic feature of such a leader is that he does not drag anyone along with him. He collects the opinions and wishes of his team regarding the directions of development, helps participants find a compromise if their opinions do not coincide, and impartially summarizes the overall result. The more such a leader is able to encourage people to take initiative and develop their own individuality compatible with teamwork, the greater his effectiveness. The second important indicator of its effectiveness: the ability to smooth out contradictions between team members so that it maintains integrity and the ability to move forward.

Moreover, if another member of the team gains authority, the unobtrusiveness of the functional leader helps him cope with the weakening of his position. And perhaps give up your role to someone else. In such situationsa star leader is more likely to maintain an iron grip on his power, which will inevitably lead the whole team to split. This is why a star leader can be a detrimental team member.

The problem of locomotive leaders usually lies in the fact that they themselves lay their own rails, where it is interesting and profitable for them, and are ready to drag others along with them only in this direction. That is, this is selfish leadership in its own way.

But any sufficiently strong, developed team, where each participant already has some kind of, albeit not the most brilliant, but still personal opinion, such a leader will only irritate. Therefore, as civilization develops, locomotive leaders lose their importance. Instead, more and more peer-to-peer teams are emerging, led by a responsive and unobtrusive leader who encourages their initiative and manages disagreements. If this is the case in a team, the leadership position can pass to another member without unnecessary drama, since the integrity of the team is more important than the ambitions of its leader.

Ch.: What should locomotive leaders do? Some people are just like that.

A: This is a difficult question. In short, they can transform themselves into functional leaders by putting aside their selfishness for the greater good. Such teams turn out to be the strongest. Charisma is a powerful tool, and when a stellar leader devotes his talents fully to achieving common goals, such teams tend to be highly motivated and highly effective.

If a star leader is quarrelsome with others or is used to giving instructions, his fate in developed societies may turn out differently. He can become a loner or recruit a new frankly weak and driven team to continue to dominate there. Although often such individuals, who find themselves unable to work well with a strong team, simply lose their initiative and become disappointed in others or in themselves.

I have listed five universal principles for building stable social structures that can withstand high stress. These principles work well in both small and large social groups. By implementing these principles, people will take important steps toward achieving a higher degree of intimacy with each other.

So, the nearest possible qualitative shift in relations between people is the creation of teams with approximately equal initiative, talented participants, whose leader does not suppress them with his authority, but encourages them to develop.

Creating such a team is a serious task, because being a strong functional leader is difficult, and being an proactive team member is also difficult. And the structures created under the locomotive leaders are very unstable. If such a leader stops pushing, the team often falls apart. If the leader does not know how to be an impartial arbiter in disputes or likes to quarrel, the structure under him is always in a fever, and the strongest participants are gradually washed out, leaving the weakest and most passive, ready to tolerate the imperfections of their leader. As a result, the team becomes helpless and may also end up scattering in all directions.

That is, for effective unification, you need a group of people with a sufficient level of development, initiative, and who want to develop together. We briefly discussed above what mistakes there may be when creating such a structure, which can lead to its collapse.

CH: What can such a team be formed around? Are we talking about professional teams or like-minded people?

A.: The most valuable and most accessible thing at the moment that can unite people is friendship, love, and concern for each other’s fate. You can try to build a team around this.

Ch.: I still don’t quite understand how, from the alienation that I see in earthly society, one can come to some kind of friendly cooperation?

A.: In the development of any civilization, crises of satiety with experience periodically occur. These crises in earth’s history often manifested themselves in the form of social upheaval. The most serious such crisis in the 20th century can be considered the 1917 revolution in Russia. After it, very serious changes took place, setting new vectors of development for the entire civilized society of the planet for a hundred years to come.

The essence of such crises can be described in clear words: it is simply impossible to live as before, it is unbearable.

Sooner or later, civilization becomes saturated with all types of experiences of division: hatred, competition, egocentrism, etc. And at a certain stage, its participants understand that without radical changes in social consciousness they simply cannot continue to live. Endless variations of confrontation no longer cause anything but fatigue and even nausea. With such satiety in society, another breakdown of the outdated collective model of thinking may occur, and then things that previously seemed impossible will become possible.

People may develop a desire to unite when their standard reaction to ideas of confrontation becomes soul-chilling indifference. Such a stage will inevitably come for earthly civilization, because the endless saturation of the soul with the same species experience is, in principle, poorly feasible. It’s like forcing a person to eat the same food endlessly: for some, satiety occurs earlier, for others later, but in the end there will be too few people willing to continue consuming it all. Most would rather remain hungry than eat at least one more piece.

Of course, there is no need to wait for radical disruptions in social thinking, since these are difficult processes for souls. It will be great if people are ready to unite earlier. I’m just trying to explain to you that a tangible impulse towards rapprochement between earthlings will still manifest itself at a certain stage. The exhaustion of all types of experience of confrontation will lead the souls of the Earth to the desire to try unification, and humanity has so far mastered 1% of this experience, although it is very diverse and can be incredibly inspiring.

The experience of unification is like a fundamentally new cuisine with a wide range of dishes that the average earthling, one might say, has not even tried yet, but has only smelled something. It’s basically impossible not to master this new cuisine in the near future. Rather, the hands of resourceful and enterprising chefs have not yet reached it, but this will definitely happen.

Everything that is hidden, but exists and has serious value, is destined to be found, mastered and appreciated. The time will come, and the experience of uniting civilization into effective teams will enter the life of earthlings. All that remains is to wait for the brave pioneers, ready for new discoveries (Smiles).

Ch.: Thank you.

https://absolutera.ru/article16533-ayna-stremlenie-k-edinstvu