Persuasion

Persuasion has a bad reputation, but that’s not her fault. In reality it’s nobody’s fault, and the negative or positive meanings that some words awaken in us have little to do with the words themselves. They have to do instead with the meanings that have been built, sometimes over centuries, for certain words. Unfortunately or fortunately, Persuasion has a cousin named Manipulation who looks a lot like her, but in reality they are very distant relatives whose similarity is only apparent.

Probably the most significant thing about persuasion is that the person using it isn’t trying to get anything out of using it. In other words, persuasion isn’t used for one’s own benefit. Persuasion is the ability to empathize with others, and requires putting oneself in the other’s place, not just in order to understand them, but also - in some cases - to be able to help them.

On the contrary, to use persuasion’s cousin, manipulation, a person needs only their own self-interest. It is important to note that manipulation of all kinds begins and ends in the individual or group that has decided to manipulate. There are no benefits for others except imaginary ones, which in reality do not exist as such. Manipulation generally comes into play when I want something that I can only get through others, and this speaks to me of possession, of desire, of fear, of psychological violence.

It is common and accepted that to impose something on others one has to manipulate, and this manipulation can be grossly or subtly expressed. To manipulate whole groups of people one needs only to appeal to some baseless fear - and most fears are baseless. Others resort to threats, promises, lies, etc. It doesn’t seem to matter how one arouses in others the doubts, hopes, affirmation or negation that are necessary for obtaining benefits. It’s also common and accepted that when I want to convince someone else of something that would benefit me directly or indirectly, I resort to manipulation.

Feelings of guilt, fear, and insecurities of all kinds are the perfect tools for getting something from others. The best manipulations are the ones that appeal to the “common good,” the “needs of the whole,” “our fatherland,” “the neighborhood,” “the community,” etc., calling on guilt, either covertly or up front, to produce or obtain something from that group.

Fortunately, or unfortunately - once again, because I am not sure - persuasion has nothing to do with manipulation. Persuasion truly is an aspiration of the human being, an aspiration that has to do with what is best in us and in others. An aspiration without ulterior motives, with only respect, recognition, and an ability to put oneself in the other’s place. If fears and resentments come together in manipulation, they completely disappear in persuasion.

It is good not to confuse these two young ladies. Persuasion is joyful, warm, sincere, generous, and perceptive. The other is the opposite, but both wear the same dress when they are introduced. They can be recognized by what they produce internally. Persuasion always appeals to what is best in others. She almost never tells me what I should or must do, but simply asks me, “And what would you do?” She always puts me in touch with what is best in me, which is how I keep discovering how different she is from her cousin, and how I keep understanding more and more deeply the meaning of the words, “We aspire to persuade and to reconcile.”


Fernando Aranguiz

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards

Do Not Imagine

 

Reflections on “The Path”

At the end of the book Silo's Message, there is a section called "The Path" in which we find very short phrases suggesting a mental direction. Among these phrases are three that begin the same way, with the words "Do not imagine...":

"Do not imagine that you are alone in your village, in your city, on the Earth, and among the infinite worlds.

Do not imagine that you are enchained to this time and this space.

Do not imagine that upon your death, loneliness will become eternal.”

I have often wondered about the meaning of these phrases, and also about the way they are presented. First, they take the form of a warning, or a suggestion about “where not to go.” It is interesting that a path points out possible mistakes or detours to avoid, and it is good to keep this in mind since we will be traveling this path internally.

But before delving into this topic, I believe it will be helpful to look at the beginning of the Path - in other words, the beginning of any inner journey is the most important condition for undertaking it. This is explained in the first section, which states the following:

"If you believe that your life ends with death, what you think, feel, and do has no meaning. Everything ends in incoherence, in disintegration.

If you believe that your life does not end with death, you must bring into agreement what you think with what you feel and what you do. Everything must advance toward coherence, toward unity.

If you are indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, none of the help that you ask for will be justified.

If you are not indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, in order to help them you must bring your thoughts, feelings, and actions into agreement."

These sentences contain two key verbs: "to believe" and "to be." Belief is obviously based on what we believe, and what we believe determines where we start. We have to believe something, whether positive or negative. That's how beliefs work, and depending upon them, action and everything else appears in the world.

So, what we believe or don't believe determines our basic direction, and I find that very consistent with everything Silo proposes. We don't start from nothing, and our options are clear. If I don't believe, it's good for me to question my lack of faith or belief; after all, it's much more interesting to believe than not to believe. Someone might intellectualize all this and say that beliefs are beliefs, and that's that - but in this case I want to use the idea of belief to go a little further. That's what I've been reflecting on. Beliefs in general don't have much of an intellectual or scientific basis, but that doesn't stop them from moving us. In fact, it's almost the opposite; a mathematical formula doesn't move anyone, but some beliefs are capable of mobilizing crowds and entire countries. All of this has given me food for thought, so I've dedicated myself to rereading some of Silo's writings on the theme, reviewing them in order to better understand the proposals of the Path.

In 1997, Silo spoke with Enrique Nassar in Buenos Aires about the basic belief system we possess as humanity and as a species, saying:

"People change if their basic belief system changes. Since Descartes, consciousness has been defined as a thing, as something with extension. From there, consciousness is considered just another instance of evolving matter, like an organ that can be manipulated through drugs and electrical stimuli. Consciousness is not a passive, reactive organism; it is much more than that. It is an intentional, evolutionary structure. The true dynamic of consciousness is to transform itself, to transform the body, and to transform the world."

Silo describes consciousness according to its true importance and function, which is not what the system describes when studying consciousness. In this statement, the notion of transformation appears: transformation not only of itself, but also of the body in which it resides and of the world in which it acts. This is an extremely important point, because it directs everything toward the understanding that there is an evolutionary intention in this human consciousness, which is truly what drives all progress, all understanding, and, in general, what defines humankind as such.

Silo continues:

"The fact that astronomical research is revealing that the world does not move mechanically, as explained by the Big Bang theory—the random mechanical collision that, by chance, supposedly lead to the evolutionary process we know—but rather that there are universes that coalesce and move according to a direction that is not mechanical but intentional; in other words, the universe has a meaning in its development."

Silo explains the concept of “intentional direction,” summarizing it with the idea of a universe or many universes that are developing and expanding with an intentional, not random or mechanical, purpose.

The same applies to what he calls “the basic belief system,” which he defines as follows:

"Today, despite research revealing solar systems, galaxies, galaxy clusters, universes, and multiple universes, despite the evidence of the immensity of the universe, we maintain three things: life on Earth is the only life in the universe; life on Earth is the only form of intelligence in the universe; and Homo Sapiens is the only form of human life. In other words, we maintain that we are the only form of life, of intelligent life, and of human life. We believe we are unique, the entire universe is for us, and we are the center of the universe. In other words, we remain geocentric. This is a part of our basic belief system that we have not yet modified."

So from this perspective, as humanity continues to function with these kinds of beliefs, Silo says something that I believe is important to mention: that despite all the research, despite the discoveries that are happening every day, we keep imagining that we are unique, that we are alone, and that this loneliness will be eternal.

He continues:

"The evidence that there are other forms of intelligent life in the universe, in other words that we are not unique; an understanding that consciousness is not something mechanical and reactive, but rather an intentional evolutionary structure; being on the verge of accepting that the human body is a primitive relic whose development does not correspond to the speed of evolution of consciousness; and possessing the knowledge and technology to modify the body; being close to liberating humankind from the slavery of work… all of this is a clear sign that humanity is seeking to free itself from its basic belief system."

Here he adds an idea that sometimes provokes rejection in many who consider the body "sacred": the idea that the body can be intentionally modified. But the truth is that, sacred or not, the body is susceptible to significant modifications, especially when these changes can actually increase its potential, as is the case with organ and limb replacement. Prostheses and artificial hearts, lungs, kidneys, etc., are excellent and last longer than the body itself. In the field of medicine, great strides have been made since the last world war, and body modifications are a reality experienced daily. This is a specific topic, but it can be investigated in more detail with concrete cases presented in medical documents and studies conducted in different parts of the world. But perhaps the most significant point here is that the body does not change at the same pace as the modification of consciousness.

To continue with the topic of body modification, and from a biological perspective, the following news item appeared on May 20, 2010:

Scientists have created the world's first synthetic life form in a landmark experiment that lays the groundwork for the design of organisms that instead of evolving, are built.

The controversial feat, which has occupied 20 scientists for more than 10 years at an estimated cost of $40 million, was described by one researcher as 'a watershed moment in biology.'

Craig Venter, the pioneering American geneticist responsible for the experiment, claimed that the achievement heralds the beginning of a new era in which new life is created for the benefit of humanity, starting with bacteria that produce biofuels, absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and even manufacture vaccines.

Critics, however, including some religious groups, have condemned the work. One organization warned that the artificial organisms could escape into the wild and cause environmental havoc or become biological weapons. Others claimed that Venter was playing God.

The new organism is based on an existing bacterium that causes mastitis in goats, but at its core is a completely synthetic genome constructed from chemicals in the laboratory.

The single-celled organism has four 'watermarks' written in its DNA to identify it as synthetic and help trace its descendants back to its creator, should they become lost.

"We were euphoric when the cells started with all the watermarks in place," Dr. Venter told the press. "Now it's a living species, part of our planet's inventory of life."

On that occasion, Silo, while at Manantiales Park in Chile, raised a toast to this extraordinary moment when artificial life was created for the first time.

Continuing the conversation with Enrique, Silo says the following:

"When all these things become evident, the basic belief system will be deconstructed: Opening the way for such ideas as that there is an intention in the universe, that there are other forms of intelligent life, that individual consciousness is intentionally evolving, that the body is a primitive relic susceptible to modification, that the best thing to do is stop working and let machines take over."

In this phrase, Silo introduces the idea of “deconstruction,” not as something negative, but rather as something necessary for the emergence of another kind of apparatus with a different set of beliefs—the opposite of what we have now. Therefore, it is worthwhile not only to “not imagine” but also to consider all these options that are already springing up.

Silo continues the conversation, adding:

"Human beings don’t feel according to what they think; they feel according to what they believe. With the deconstruction of our basic belief system, our image of the world will crack, and with it, a whole new system of possibilities for the development of consciousness will open up.”

In this paragraph, Silo explains something significant when he clarifies that our feelings depend not on our ideas but on our beliefs. The image we construct of the world is based on what we believe, not necessarily on what we know. If these beliefs lose their value and their influence, then great possibilities and new directions open up for the consciousness, which is obviously intentional and evolutionary, as Silo explains, and does not correspond to the mechanical and random universe to which present beliefs are anchored. The simple act of questioning what exists and imagining future possibilities puts our consciousness on a different path and expands our framework of beliefs.

Finally, Silo closes this conversation with the following:

"Human beings of the future will not want to win and possess things; they will want to feel, to create, to build, and to learn without limits. They will not want to possess, to have, to control. They will understand that there are millions of ways to develop emotion and thought, that there is an unimaginable diversity of ways to feel and think. Today humanity's vision is very behavioral and limited, but in the future, EVERYTHING WILL BE ALL RIGHT, EVERYTHING WILL GO WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO."

From my point of view, this faith in the future that Silo so clearly expresses carries great weight, and opens up the decades to come for a world that is currently in crisis. The current crisis is absolutely necessary because what is truly in crisis is not the economy, politics, form of government, etc. These are merely manifestations of something much deeper, something related to the fundamental human belief system to which Silo refers.

The image of the human being of the future is a powerful one, and when I contemplate it in relation to the Path, I find it has an inspirational effect.

If I do not imagine that I am alone, then I can imagine that I am with many others on a mutual quest. If my existence is more connected with the existence of others, that liberates me and propels me toward a different kind of relationship with the world, and especially with others.

If my death does not perpetuate loneliness, then I can open the door to transcendence and the future.

By allowing myself a glimpse of consciousness as intentional and evolutionary, I can increase my faith in the future and in others; then my optimism is not naiveté but a genuine effort to move in the evolutionary direction that Silo presents regarding the future of humanity. Our old framework of basic beliefs is increasingly and rapidly crumbling, and new forms of thought, feeling, and action are emerging. In this fleeting present moment, I feel that we are living through one of the most special and profoundly transformative moments in history. Therefore, it is good NOT TO IMAGINE that which leads toward death, but rather TO IMAGINE that which leads toward the growth, transformation, and expansion of life itself.

At the beginning of this labyrinthine writing, I offered a proposal about believing and being as mentioned at the beginning of the Path. If I believe that my life does not end with death, and if I am not indifferent to the suffering of others, then I will orient my life in a direction where what I think, feel, and do is unitive and coherent. I feel very motivated to reflect on this proposal and to practice daily what Silo suggests on this Path:

If I believe that my life does not end with death, I must bring into agreement what I think with what I feel and what I do. Everything must advance toward coherence, toward unity.

If I am not indifferent to the pain and suffering of others, in order to help them I must bring my thoughts, feelings, and actions into agreement.


Fernando Aranguiz

June 2026

Translated by Trudi Richards

Art by Rafael Edwards