Answer: There are people who can understand the necessity of such a society:
- There are people who arrive at this through suffering as they see that suffering isn’t leading towards anything good;
- There are those who study nature and see from practice, from what they attain through natural sciences, that evidently this is the ultimate goal of nature.
There are different people, so accordingly, all of humanity is divided into a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid are those who simply understand, feel, and sense an inner need for it. These people are created this way. They can be called idealists—they are this way by nature, they’re ready for it.
There are people who arrive at this from a scientific point of view. They agree with it as with a real necessity given to us by nature in which we exist and of which we are a result.
There are those who can foresee the result in advance. Although they don’t like it or see anything attractive in it, they understand that otherwise we’ll be driven towards it through suffering, what’s referred to as “being pushed to happiness.”
And then there are simply people who suffer greatly in our world. There is an enormous number of them. They fight for their existence and live on the level of an ordinary, one may even say animal, life. They don’t have anything other than work and worries, and they keep hauling their life in this manner. It’s sufficient to simply explain to them how to gradually arrange it so they can transfer all of their concerns about themselves onto society, taking upon themselves the care for the integral society.
One can understand in practice that when humanity eliminates excessive abundance and arrives to this common denominator, tremendous forces are awakened naturally. And we can really come to harmony, but only under the influence of the environment.
We see with an example of Europe how a large number of Europeans—scientists, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists—begin to realize that breaking the integrality is very difficult; that it’s equivalent to going against a pre-set process, set both by nature and at this point, by them themselves. It’s very difficult for them to part with their money, like, say, it’s hard for the Germans to give 500 billion dollars or Euros to Greeks. Yet they see that otherwise it’ll end up costing more. To get your money back is not the same as simply printing it! Here we’re starting to invoke upon ourselves an enormous amount of negative forces. Protectionism is simply dangerous.
When we begin to see the inexorability of this process and gradually explain it to people, it’s impossible to disagree with it—life will oblige us to agree.
We don’t think that we should rage forward and intensively elucidate the essence of the process on every street corner and square. We need to introduce the gradual education and upbringing of a person, objectively explain what events are ahead of us, what frameworks, matrices, templates, we need to enter, starting with the current state and ending with the one we need to reach.
To gradually prepare the public opinion towards this means to significantly soften the entire path that we need to go through. After all, we will go through it either coercively, by evolutionary forces that will severely press us to the point of extinction, the way it was with the dinosaurs, or we can convert all of it into a pleasant, consciously realized transformation of a person from the animate level to that of “Adam” or “Man.”
From a “Talk About Integral Education” #8, 12/14/11