Salguero: “The human being is not limited only to his body format”

Salguero: "The human being is not limited only to his body format"

Antonio Salguer or (General Roca, RN, Argentina, 1957) is a singular person in terms of his learning and some of the experiences of what he calls “earthly life” (sic). Besides being an essayist, self-taught, meditator and assistant in child psychology, Salguero is the author of two books: amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp amp ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; Theory of Mind, Patagonian Versionamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; ampamp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; amp; quot; (2009).

In the latter, he proposes an open and frontal criticism towards some watertight academic structures, in force in several sectors of academic disciplines such as Philosophy, Psychology and Neurosciences. The author proposes that there are conceptions far from the Reality of the Human Being or and the Me nte , which according to his criteria in the 21st century should already be practically overcome. Thus, he states in his book:

“The human being is a complex system composed of the sum of four inseparable elements: Cue

Yes, there are previous lives of ourselves here on planet Earth, and it is certain and probable that there must be many more, especially if we are to achieve even a minimal “acceptable evolution”, both for us as cosmic individuals, and for the harmonious life of planet Earth. This is usually a taboo subject in formal academic circles. Luckily there is very good research by some psychiatrists and researchers of the mind, which gives an account of this vital phenomenon. In everyday life, these studies are called “sofrosis” (a particular hypnotic practice), or “past life regressions”. If we dare to know some of those past details, it is much easier to understand some particularities of the present time.

Q. According to your categorical statements: Should we understand that there is life after death? How do you substantiate it?

Totally. This is where the human imagination goes into acute crisis. We are usually educated not to “see beyond our noses”, even the beliefs of religion have a lot of responsibility in this. This is my great criticism of some things in the current system. That is a serious brake on creativity and the evolution of the psyche. However, when a researcher has the opportunity to “interact in a natural way” with other aspects of life installed in a parallel dimension to this one, there is inevitably an opening of the mind, which modifies almost all the concepts and ideas that we have in a current way. I insist, we must make the effort to advance in the concepts, we are stagnant for a long time already. We must necessarily disobey some structures, bring down the wall of clumsy and obsessive knowledge. We must evolve, not towards technique, but towards the deep psyche.

Q. I notice that you are very frontal in your words, you show a lot of security in spite of the great complexity of these issues. Let’s change the subject for a moment: What is love?

That’s a hell of a question, I wasn’t expecting this turn. Actually… I’ve been changing, mutating with this definition throughout this life. As a child, I began to believe that it was an obligation because that’s what they told me at home and at school. Then in high school, I continued to accept that Love was a natural condition of the human being. Later, in university, I began to realize that it was more of a social tendency imposed by the system. At another time I had a religious idea of what love meant to them and their books. However, none of these temporal definitions left me satisfied. Today… after many comings and goings, of joys and sufferings within the cultural system, I can say that: “it is a particular vibratory state of the quantum mind”. That is to say… of the Mind of the Soul , as many know it. “Love then is the vibratory, balanced and harmonic result of the very psychic evolution of the human in us”.

Q. I understand that you have elaborated quite a lot on all these concepts that you mention: Are you in love, Antonio? What is the difference between love and falling in love?

I love the stages I’ve been through in my life. Many were beautiful, others were romantic, and a few were very severe, without being sad. I know practically no sadness, since I never joined their vibratory format, although I have had quite a few strong feelings, especially because of the results I observed of the human behaviors of my environment, behaviors that I did not expect with those results. This led me to meditate a lot and to practice even more the inner silence. With time I have understood them. With the help of many years of meditation I began to understand other states of mind and love. Today I understand that love is the result of the evolution of the deep psyche, it is a vibration that grows in the feelings, in the will and the intentionality of the soul. On the other hand, falling in love is generally linked to the cerebral and behavioral behaviors of the human body. As you can see, the body and the mind are different issues.

Q. It seems that we are beginning to deal with concepts that are strongly rooted in our culture. I thought that body and mind were the same thing, but you hold the opposite view.

“Let’s go for parts,” said Jack the Ripper (laughs) . The human being is not just one thing that interacts with the environment. The human being is a true Intelligent System , composed of four inseparable elements: Body , Thought , Time and Environment . However, until now we had been “taught” that body and mind were the same thing, and that was the human being. This is not true, it never has been. Now it is time to clear up old doubts and old prejudices. The human being is not limited only to his body format, no matter how much most academics insist on it.

Q. So, how should we understand the idea of the Mind ?

Well, to begin with I’ll tell you that: “The Mind does not exist, there are only mental processes of information”. The first one who made a dual distinction of “Body-Mind”, was the philosopher René Descartes, and for enunciating an almost exact dualistic perception, today almost everyone, (including notable thinkers of the world’s mind), criticizes it without any valid reason, since they still do not know the true structure and nature of the human mind since they have not investigated enough. I must say: “The error is not Descartes’,” but the confusion is that of those who criticize him on unfortunate grounds. The body exists, just as the mental states of the body exist, and the mental states of the “thinking subject” ( soul is his better known name). In other words, there are “two (2) minds”, the mind of the physical body as an intelligent system and the mind of the thinking subject in every physical human being. Most scientists, among them: psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and philosophers, are still unaware that there are, present in the human being, two different natures, each one with different properties, for what we call “Mind or mental processes”. That is why the foundations of the debate, whatever it may be today, change radically. The topic is long to cover, that is why I express that some sectors of science “are responsible for the ignorance that abounds on the subject”, they stop the natural evolution of knowledge because they are tied to their own “neural traps”.

Q. You have the concept of Simultaneous Mind , how does this arise in your life?

The first idea of the existence of two (2) mental processes, interacting simultaneously arises as a private experience, some years ago, in 2004 while I was meditating deeply in the forest. At that time I was living in my cabin made in the mountain range. In that opportunity I could distinguish very clearly the difference between both mental processes. What amazed me most was that both mental processes interacted simultaneously. After a few years of research, I was able to understand what their different natures were, how their properties interacted in the body, and I was able to know something more about their origins. However, this in turn led me to look for other answers, among them, about another possible origin of the human being itself, and because of this I had no choice but to depart from the ideas of Darwin’s theory regarding the origin of man.

Q. Before entering into your reasoning about another possible origin of the human being, let’s put it in context: What is the current state of science on this matter?

What I call the “Simultaneous Mind” happens and takes place, between the synaptic processes of the brain’s neurons. Until now, nobody that I know of, has managed to identify these two processes separately, there is a lot of resistance to this, since many academic chapters would have to be rewritten about the mind and the human being. A little bit is due to the fact that our cerebral self-perception is quite slow, and that is why nobody yet distinguishes the two simultaneous processes that exist. I provide very important data: they are of different speeds, come from different places, and also have different natures. This last detail makes them very convenient to identify, however neuroscientists have been indoctrinated to assume and accept that “all mental processes arise from neurons”. And this is not the case, I understand that they still have a lot to discover, although they have enough technology, and I think they still don’t know what to look for. I add here another detail: if they understood this, they would find many answers to the phenomenon of “consciousness after death”, and insist on giving them a neuronal response to the phenomenon of the ECM , (“Near-Death Experiences”), but it seems that this is also another taboo subject.

Q. Even though this topic generates many controversies in the current academic and scientific model, what could you tell me about that “thinking subject” you mention?

To begin with, I will tell you that Will, Feelings, Intentionality and Thoughts, are intelligent processes of a subatomic or quantum nature, of the still unknown “thinking subject”, present in every human being that exists. (The four elements that I have mentioned “do not belong to the neurons nor to the physical body”, here is a great error in the academic conceptual bases). ) For the novelty of many thinkers, this “thinking subject” has existed for tens of thousands of years, and is coming and going in the life of the Earth, again and again to evolve its own psyche. To summarize this I will tell you: the physical body is by definition, a true “Composite Intelligent System”, and in addition the body has its own intelligent mind.

Q. So, according to your words: I am not my own body? Who am I really? What exactly is the human being?

Very good reflection on yours, my dear Xavier. In reality, the atomic and molecular body that you now have, is only the physical vehicle, of hominid format that helps to displace and express your subatomic particles, in this planetary dimension. It also helps you to manifest all your creativity, evolution and profound intelligence. The thought (contrary to what is stated), is of a subatomic nature (typical of the intelligence of subatomic or quantum particles) and besides interacting with the brain, it is capable of transcending physical matter. The time has a double aspect, so to speak. And the dimensional environment is also double, that is, here and in the other dimension parallel and simultaneous to this reality that you and I are now living. Sorry if I have complicated the issue a little, but it is inevitable. It is impossible to maintain the old cultural paradigms if we wish to advance and evolve as a species. We must use the resource of our subatomic intelligence to interpret things in another way that is more open to the truth. We must make the effort to break out of the neural trap structures imposed by the brain’s neurons.

Q. I imagine that the concept of mind and that of intelligence are linked in some way. In your opinion, what is the definition of intelligence that most appeals to you?

In general, I find the opinions of the various authors to be sound over time. Although the vast majority agree that it is an ability or skill to solve problems in the environment. That is perhaps a fitting expression for hominid brain intelligence. I share more with the idea of Eyssautier and Maurice (2002), when they maintain that: “Intelligence is an ability to analyze, separate and dismantle a complex situation, extracting its meaning”. This conceptualization seems to me more opportune than others, since it can include subatomic thought which is, without a doubt, superior to cerebral intelligence. Although I must add that on the other hand I adhere to the correct classifications made by Dr. Howard Gardner and which he calls “Multiple Intelligences”, with the exception that he, perhaps with sincere intention, said: “I do not know where they come from, I only know that I have typed those eight for the human being”. To close this great story, Gardner only had to add something like: “I have discovered that those multiple intelligences are, in reality, aptitudes and accumulated skills that result from the product of the psychic evolution produced by the subatomic mind of each human, in the different previous lives, and that are now present in the current social individual, where they are expressed with their potentialities”.

Q. How does this fit in with your theory of Intelligent Systems ?

If we were to do the exercise of having an “adequate mental opening”, we would notice that life on planet Earth is a complex intelligent system devised, created to comply with cycles of balance and unbalance, thus keeping life forms in perpetual motion. Regarding my theory on Intelligent Systems , I must say that everything we observe on the planet is, as a whole, a Supra Intelligent System of molecules and atoms. The exception that escapes the natural balance system is the human being. For man is a “compound and simultaneous Intelligent System”, integrated by two intelligent systems, that of the molecules plus the atoms of the body on the one hand, and by the intelligent system of subatomic particles of the thinking subject , on the other hand. The latter is intertwined with the body and mind of the hominid physicist, but who “is neither that body nor that physical mind”, since those subatomic particles transcend the fact of death itself, since they have a different nature. The resulting human intelligence, then, is a true mix of Simultaneous Intelligence , between the abilities of the body and the creativity of the soul, the latter being present in every second of our decisions. That is why we should talk about the intelligence of the body system, and the intelligence of the thinking particle system, that is, we have two integrated and simultaneous intelligences. When these words that I expound are interpreted as they should be, the whole of humanity will be facing a new evolutionary paradigm.

Leave a Reply